Green Technology Forum

Rona Fried, PhD, publisher, interviewed Green Technology Forum director Dr. George Elvin for the November 2007 issue of Progressive Investor:

Nanotechnology & Green Building

When you think of nanotechnology do you think of green building? Probably not, but nanotech, the manipulation of matter at the molecular scale, is already providing environmental benefits for buildings.

Although the market for nano-enhanced building materials in the U.S. was under $20 million in 2006, it’s expected to grow to $400 million by 2016. $4 billion a year is being pumped into nanotech R&D worldwide, resulting in a pipeline of materials and products that will transform the way future buildings are made.

Nano has the potential to greatly reduce emissions from buildings - which produce 43% of the world’s CO2 emissions - reduce construction waste, which accounts for 40% of landfill materials, while providing cleaner air and water inside buildings.

In the first wave, nanotech is making its way into insulation, coatings and solar PV. The next wave, currently in the development stage, will bring advances in lighting technology, air and water purification. In about ten years we’ll begin to see changes in structural components like concrete and steel, adhesives, and batteries.

We interviewed George Elvin, who recently published the fascinating report, “Nanotechnology for Green Building,” which identifies 130 startups and established companies offering or developing nanomaterials for green building. Elvin is director of the Green Technology Forum and Associate Professor at Ball State University.

PI: How is nano being used today in green building and who are the leading companies?

George Elvin:

Using nano to improve the performance of existing buildings is one of the great opportunities right now.

Nano insulation is one of the most commercialized nano products. It gets around the problem of insulating existing buildings, which is hard to do with bulky conventional materials like fiberglass. You literally paint or spray the insulation on - it’s invisible and non-toxic. The insulating coatings are so thin and clear that you don’t know they’re there.

With demand for energy efficient buildings rising, insulation is the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions from buildings - it lowers a building’s energy consumption by 42% while maintaining a comfortable indoor environment. Nano insulating materials are about 30% more efficient than conventional materials like fiberglass or cellulose.

Industrial Nanotech (INTK.PK), for example, is signing multi-million dollar contracts right and left. They also insulate pipelines - the coating insulates them from the weather, saving huge amounts of energy. In an example of another application, they just signed a big contract with the largest textile company in Turkey to coat some of their machinery. When you insulate machinery, the building’s cooling costs drop dramatically. It’s being applied to aluminum ceiling panels in the new Suvanabhumi International Airport in Bangkok, the world’s largest airport.

The company is developing the first prototype for insulation that actually generates electricity. The thin sheets of insulation - just a few thousands of an inch thick - use the temperature differential that insulation creates to generate electricity. In the future, they will be able to tap the difference in day and night time temperature between the inside and outside of a building, an almost constant source of energy.

Important emerging companies include Industrial Nanotech (Naples, Florida), Nanotec (Brookvale, Australia), Ecology Coatings (ECOC.OB) (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan) and Aspen Aerogels (Northborough, Massachusetts).

It’s interesting to see these young companies coming out of the labs and into the market. They often start when a scientist finds some amazing properties in the lab and builds a product around it, and then finds a business partner to start a company around the product.

Cabot Corp (NYSE: CBT) is a midcap company that makes aerogel insulation. It doubles the insulation and light transmission values of skylights and other daylighting technologies, enabling architects to design buildings with more natural light (reducing energy consumption).

Aerogel, dubbed “frozen smoke,” is the lightest weight solid in the world. The gel is filled with gas rather than liquid and is 95% air. Yet, it can support over 2,000 times its own weight. An 3.5 inch thick aerogel panel provides an R-value of R-28, previously unheard of in a translucent panel.

PI: How is nano used for coatings?

George Elvin:

That’s the other most established sector. Nanocoatings can be used to self-clean surfaces, and in the process they de-pollute - they actually remove air pollutants and dissolve them into relatively benign elements.

De-polluting nanocoatings break down toxins that come in contact with surfaces. When painted onto a road, bridge or building they not only protect the surface and reduce the need for cleaning, they eliminate some of the pollution that cars emit. It’s invisible and nontoxic.

Nanotec’s coatings are on a number of buildings around the world now. A building stays clean much longer, especially the windows, reducing the need for toxic chemical cleansers which emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They also have the potential to clean indoor air.

Self-cleaning windows were one of the first architectural applications of nanotech. The coating causes water to sheet off the surface, leaving a clean exterior with minimal spotting or streaking.

Kohler and other plumbing fixture manufacturers are starting to paint anti-microbial coatings on sinks and toilets, which means less maintenance and lower costs. Microban International makes a product called Microban, which is used in 450 products including cleaning supplies, paints, caulking and plumbing fixtures.

In the future, the technology could make pipes so smooth and slippery that they can’t plug up, wear out, and can carry much more water in a smaller pipe.

PI: What’s happening in solar?

George Elvin:

Nanotech solar is starting to offer real competition to conventional silicon-based solar manufacturing. It isn’t as efficient as conventional solar, but is steadily improving. It could replace silicon technology in 5-10 years. The Department of Energy estimates that 50% of the electrical needs of buildings in the U.S. can be met by BIPV systems.

NanoSolar has received $100 million in investments from some of the venture capital powerhouses, along with individual investors like the founders of Google. The company has the potential to transform the solar market with its “roll to roll” process, where thin film, nanotech solar cells are literally printed onto plastic or metal. It makes integrating solar into a building more like printing a newspaper, a major advance from glass plates that are installed on rooftops.

Solar sheets can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. When full production starts in early 2008, NanoSolar says it will produce 430 MW of solar cells a year. Its SolarPly BIPV panels, made from semiconductor quantum dots and other nanoparticles, will create solar-electric “carpet” to be integrated into commercial roofing membranes.

Spire, Innovalight, Konarka, HelioVolt and Solexant are other important nano solar companies all involved with building integrated PV solar (BIPV). STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM) is a large cap company that’s developing nanotech applications for new solar cell technologies [editor note: STM was on our SB20 List for several years].

Spire Corp (Nasdaq: SPIR) integrates solar into façade elements like windows and awnings. Its nanostructured materials make fabricating solar cells more efficient and enables solar to be available in various colors, giving architects options for improved aesthetics.

Innovalight is developing silicon ink-based printed solar cells. By processing silicon with liquids, the company believes it can reduce the cost of solar by over 50%. The founder, Alf Bjorseth, is the former CEO of Renewable Energy Corp (REC), one of the world’s largest vertically integrated solar companies. The recent capital raise of $28 million should move Innovalight from development to production.

PI: What’s happening in lighting?

George Elvin:

LED lighting is already a $4 billion market, and organic LEDs (OLED) are coming soon. It’s a potentially huge market with a lot of money going into research. In the long run - at least 10 years off - we’re looking at exciting developments that will change the relationship between lighting and building.

OLEDs are like thin film solar in that they are printed onto substrates. When activated by electricity, they provide brighter, crisper displays on electronic devices and use far less energy than LEDs. TVs will be less than ¼ inch thick and will be able to be rolled up when not in use. OLEDs can be applied to any surface, flat or curved, to turn it into a light source. In the future, light panels will replace light bulbs - walls, floors, ceilings, curtains, cabinets and tables could all become sources of light.

They are beginning to appear in small consumer devices like cellphone screens and are starting to enter the architectural lighting market.

Universal Display Corp (Nasdaq: PANL) is an important company here. Philips (NYSE: PHG) [Editor Note: on our 2007 SB20 List] and GE (NYSE: GE) are picking up the technologies.

PI: Tell me about some of the areas that are further in the future.

George Elvin:

Think about all the applications that can benefit from greater efficiency and you’ll find a role for nanotech. It will make batteries more efficient, create new supercapacitors, lead to advances in thermovoltaics for turning waste heat into electricity, create improved materials to store hydrogen, as well as more efficient hydrocarbon based fuel cells.

Altair Nanotechnologies (Nasdaq: ALTI) is one of the most established companies that’s developing batteries - their NanoSafe product will be used in the new line of electric Phoenix motorcars. AlwaysReady, a subsidiary of mPhase Technologies (XDSL.OB), is bringing its Smart Nanobattery to market.

Nanotechnologies for water and air filtration, which are widely available as consumer products, will increasingly penetrate the market for built-in filtration systems. Donaldson Company (NYSE: DCI) is active in this area. NanoH2O, a development stage company, is creating advanced membrane materials for the desalination and water reuse industries.

NanoDynamics is another interesting company that’s involved in a wide range of nano applications like water purification, coatings, fuel storage and batteries. It’s planning an IPO on the Dubai exchange.

Research is also underway to use nano for fire protection and to enhance structural materials including steel, concrete and wood.

PI: Are you concerned about any safety issues with nanotech?

George Elvin:

Nanoparticles are more readily absorbed into the body than larger particles - unfortunately, little is known about how they accumulate in the body or the environment. Silver nanoparticles, which are proven antibacterial agents and are incorporated into many nanotech paints and coatings, are subject to the first EPA regulations in the field. There are concerns that nanosilver might accumulate in the environment, killing beneficial bacteria and aquatic organisms.

There are also questions about how employees in nano manufacturing plants may be affected. A recent study showed cancer-causing compounds, air pollutants and toxic hydrocarbons associated with carbon nanotube manufacturing. Four major U.S. nanotube producers are developing strategies for environmentally sensitive production.

You’ve been absorbing titanium dioxide nanoparticles for years through your sunscreen - it’s used in many cosmetics and other dermal applications to make white particles disappear into the skin.

DuPont and Environmental Defense are some of the company/ NGO partners working together to develop regulatory policies.

Other factors also stand in the way of widespread adoption. The cost of many nanotech products and processes are still high, and the building industry has always been slow to adopt new technologies. The lack of independent testing and the current reliance on manufacturer claims of architectural and environmental performance is also a problem.

Nanotechnology for green building will reduce waste and toxicity, as well as energy and raw material consumption in the building industry, resulting in cleaner, healthier buildings.

I think those that adopt nanotech for green building will emerge as leaders and be rewarded
accordingly for their services. And for nanotech companies, green building is one their largest markets.

This article is reprinted with permission from Progressive Investor, a monthly newsletter that guides people toward green (cleantech) investments. Learn more: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/progressiveinvestor.main

“Some of the grandest ideas about how to preserve the environment involve molecular-scale engineering known as nanotechnology. Such visions might inspire more confidence, though, if there were real products available to achieve them.”

Apparently author Barnaby J. Feder, writing in today’s New York Times article, Aiding the Environment, a Nanostep at a Time, hasn’t seen Nanotechnology for Green Building, the 117-page report from Green Technology Forum that identifies 130 startups and established companies offering or developing nanomaterials for green building.

To his credit, and despite his initial cynicism, Federer cites several green building products available today that benefit from nanotechnology, including heat-reducing windows and white LEDs.

But oddly, he says nanotechnology “could enable innovations like increasingly efficient batteries for electric cars and solar energy panels for homes” when in fact all of these innovations are available today as commercial products enhanced by nanotechnology.

He’s right that nano-enhanced products typically come with a higher price tag than their conventional counterparts, but isn’t it time we started looking beyond first costs at how much money and energy new, innovative products can save over their whole life cycle? When we consider economic and environmental life cycle costs, many nano-products have their counterparts beat by more than a nanostep.

Last night I took part in a session on the Indy GreenPrint initiative in Indianapolis. I learned a lot about city government, how far we have to go in energy efficiency and conservation, and how eager many citizens and administrators are to get there.

For example, Tim Method, Environmental Coordinator for Indy’s Department of Public works, explained that half of the city’s energy expenditures are for sewage treatment. And when we get a good rain, which happens about fifty times a year, raw sewage overflows into our creeks and rivers. Fortunately, the city plans to spend almost $2 billion over the next twenty years to fix that problem.

But what can emerging technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology do to help green our cities? Nanotechnology is advancing water treatment significantly, and one Australian city is even using methane from wastewater to power a treatment plant. Advances in nano-solar cell technology could also enhance programs like Indianapolis Power and Light’s Green Power Option, which allows customers to specify an amount up to 100 percent of their monthly electricity to be generated by environmentally friendly, renewable resources.

I’m looking forward to helping make Indy GreenPrints a reality and introducing environmentally friendly and energy-saving nanotechnologies and biotechnologies where appropriate.

What if we make an all-out, global effort to slow global climate change. How long will it be before we see signs of improvement? Months? Years? Most experts believe it will be decades before our efforts to slow climate change will result in measurable changes at the global scale. After all, the causes of global climate change—increased carbon emissions, deforestation, overpopulation—have been at work for over two centuries, and we’re just now seeing their effects at the global scale.

But how will societies accustomed to quick fixes and instant gratification cope with the time lag between today’s efforts to slow global climate and the visible results of those efforts decades from now? My fear is that, in the absence of quick improvements, some may lose interest and simply stop making the effort.

And let’s face it, our global environmental predicament is going to get worse before it gets better. That’s just the way causes and effects work at the global scale. We have only now begun to turn the ship and begin correcting the habits that have led to the current global condition. Even with the current popularity of all things green in the U.S. and Western Europe, we’re only talking about slowing the rate of increase in carbon emissions, deforestation, overpopulation, and other causes of global climate change. Nobody is talking about reducing them.

Until the effects of today’s efforts roll up into measurable improvements in the global ecosystem, who will have the heart to stay the course? Who will keep pushing to reduce carbon emissions as the effects of global climate change worsen over the next several decades? Politicians? Unfortunately, our political system, in the U.S. at least, seems to reward short-term thinking. Green politics may be a hot topic today, but how many politicians will continue to push for environmental reform when its popularity fades in favor of the next big thing?

Businesses can sometimes be equally short-sighted. We’ve all seen the placards in hotel rooms touting the management’s environmental awareness as they ask us to reuse our dirty towels and bedding. But their conscience too often stops at this one gimmick, which just happens to save them money. Will businesses push to find new ways to reduce global climate change if consumers stop demanding green products and services?

Will scientists search for new insights and evidence to fight global warming if it no longer means big grants and research contracts? Will even the non-governmental organizations often labeled environmentalists move on to other environmental challenges if donors lose interest in the issue of global climate change.

The answer is that it’s up to each one of us to stay focused even as our global environmental predicament seems to worsen over the coming decades. Fortunately, if we continue our efforts to slow global climate change, there will be smaller victories that may sustain us. Reduced rates of extinction, habitat loss, deforestation and soil erosion can all make a dramatic difference at the local scale. These local victories will eventually add up to global effects. And if you need inspiration as we set out on the long road to a greener world, I offer this story:

“One day during his tenure of office as Administrator of Morocco, at the turn of the century, Lyautey, the famous Marshal of France, was riding through a forest when he came to a spot where a storm had uprooted some giant cedars, leaving large empty spaces in the grove. Lyautey called to his side the Director of Forestry who, with other officials, was accompanying him on his tour of inspection. ‘Look here,’ said Lyautey, ‘you will have to plant new cedars here.’ The Director of Forestry smiled. ‘Plant new cedars, sir? But it takes two thousand years to grow one of these trees.’ For a brief minute Lyautey looked surprised. ‘Two thousand years?’ he exclaimed. ‘Two thousand years? Well, then–we must plant them at once.’”

As inspectors sift through the debris of the Minneapolis Interstate 35 bridge collapse, I can’t help but think how nanotechnology could have prevented the tragedy. If a network of nanosensors or microsensors like the ones currently in place on the Golden Gate Bridge had been in place on the Minneapolis bridge, they might have warned of impending failure. Microsensors in place on the Golden Gate Bridge give a real-time, comprehensive picture of the bridge’s performance. They can measure stresses at any point along the structure along with their potential impact on the rest of the bridge.

Nanosensors and microsensors combine low manufacturing costs, compact size, low weight and power consumption, as well as increasing intelligence and multi-functionality. Their market is predicted to grow from $36 billion to $52 billion in 2009. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it grow even faster as engineers look for new ways to prevent disasters like the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

The introduction of nanotechnology and biotechnology into our lives is one of the most challenging undertakings we will face in our lifetime. The benefits, both proven and potential, are great. Human testing is now underway on nanomedicines that have proven one hundred percent effective in fighting certain cancers in rats. Genetically modified goats produce milk containing drugs that can treat diseases as severe as anthrax. But with these modern miracles come grave concerns about the consequences of new technologies. What is life like for genetically modified animals? Should we modify living things to suit our own desires? How will nanoparticles affect our bodies?

Much of the fear that some people have of nanotechnology and biotechnology stems from the fact that there are no quick easy answers to these questions. These are some of the most complex technologies we have ever employed, and their outcomes and interactions are often impossible to predict. Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter at the molecular scale, a level of nature at which quantum phenomena take charge over the Newtonian phenomena we experience at the macro level. Our conventional thinking about materials and effects don’t even work at this level.

Biotechnology can be equally perplexing, as we design and construct living things using DNA, the most fundamental building block of life, as a sculptor uses clay. How can we predict the consequences of something as complex as a new life form?

But if our conventional thinking about new materials and their effects falters faced with the complexity of nanotechnology and biotechnology, what alternative do we have for guiding or even grasping their outcomes? First, regardless of complexity, the use of any technology should be guided by principles. What do we want and why do we want it? Who benefits as a result of its use? What is its effect on the environment? Defining what we want gives us a yardstick by which to measure the success or failure of specific applications of new technologies.

However, once we have defined the what, why, and for whom, we need to bring a new level of open-mindedness to the question of how. In other words, our thinking about how to apply nanotechnology and biotechnology should not follow the patterns of past technological applications. These complex new technologies behave in new ways and raise new questions. Nanoparticles behave differently in the body and the environment than their macroscale counterparts. Genetically modified organisms occupy a strange new territory between living and non-living things.

Often I’ve found it helpful when faced with complexity and uncertainty to focus on relationships rather than entities. For example, looking past the novelty of the gold nanospehers used to treat cancer to consider their interaction with human tissue. Or looking past the mammalian clone whose mother is also its sister to ask what effects their relationship has on their quality of life.

Focusing on qualities and relationships may help us find our way through the new territory opened by nanotechnology and biotechnology better than past frameworks focusing on quantities and entities could. But thinking in this way often clashes with conventional thinking, and with the methods and mindset of many scientists. It is important, however, not only in guiding the outcomes of new technologies, but also in guiding initial experimental work. One of the greatest differences between nano/bio and earlier technologies is that they are design disciplines. Nanotechnology is the design of materials at the molecular level and biotechnology is the design of living things. This makes designers out of nanoscientists and biotechnologists and demands a new way of thinking about these sciences.

Artists are trained and perhaps innately adept at focusing on qualities and relationships. They’re inclined to ask, “What effect am I trying to achieve and why is it important,” before asking “How can I achieve it?” Scientists have been trained more to work from the bottom up, examining materials and aspects of nature to find their applications in society. Artists have learned much from scientists to aid in their pursuit of qualities and relationships. Perhaps with the advent of nanotechnology and biotechnology it is time for all of us to adopt their focus on qualities and relationships and think in new ways about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

The current green craze is flawed because it perpetuates a false relationship between us and the Earth. In most cases, it still depicts the planet as a collection of resources to be conserved and cherished. Granted, that’s much better than treating it as a collection of resources to be squandered and abused, but it still suggests a slightly disturbing view of the relationship between humanity and the Earth.

It’s disturbing because it sets us apart from nature. To think of ourselves standing apart from the web of life as observers rather than participants is to misunderstand the order inherent in the design of the universe. As the poet Robinson Jeffers put it:

The greatest beauty is organic wholeness,
the wholeness of life and things,
the divine beauty of the universe.
Love that, not man apart from that . . .

Behind the rush of the current green movement is the question:

What is nature to us?

We are of it, not apart, and yet we are its conscience, aware of it and our place in it in a way that no other creature can be. What we are to nature is stewards.

Through the green movement we are undoubtedly moving toward stewardship, learning the wholeness of life and things, and learning to think long term. As a result, almost all of us now recognize that our actions today will affect the world tomorrow, just as we recognize that yesterday’s environmental transgressions are taking their toll today.

But do we really see ourselves as integral to nature’s wholeness, or outside it? Will we use biotechnology and nanotechnology to try to control nature as a collection of resources or will we use them in the service of stewardship? How do we even define the difference?

I’m not against the green movement, just vigilant as to its outcome. Will it dissipate, giving way to the next big thing? Or will it cause a lasting, fundamental change in our relationship with our planet? It’s up to us.

“Are you spontaneously enthusiastic about everyone having everything you can have?” That’s the question posed by R. Buckminster Fuller in Critical Path. Like most people, I would answer with a hearty “yes”. But like most “haves”, I get a little nervous if it looks like providing for others is going to cost me some of my comforts. When that happens, I remind myself that more for today’s “have-nots” doesn’t have to mean less for me.

Rather than taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, we can achieve equality by making more efficient use of the resources we already have. Our earth and sun provide us with all the resources we need for all of us to live well, if only we are willing and able to steward them properly.

As Fuller observed, “. . . humanity now—for the first time in history—has the realistic opportunity to help evolution do what it is inexorably intent on doing—converting all humanity into one harmonious world family and making that family sustainingly, economically successful.”

I often wonder if nanotechnology and biotechnology could be the keys that open a new world so rich in wisely utilized resources that we can all live well. And apparently, I’m not alone. The week of June 11, 2007, thirteen of the world’s leading scientists gathered in Ilulissat, Greenland for the Kavli Futures Symposium, “The Merging of Bio and Nano: Towards Cyborg Cells.” They felt so strongly that nano and bio will have such a profound effect on humanity that they issued a statement unanimously stating their position in The Ilulissat Statement, “Synthesizing the Future: a Vision for the Convergence of Synthetic Biology and Nanotechnology.” Among their conclusions:

“The construction of arbitrary genetic sequences comparable to the genome size of simple organisms is now possible. Turning these artificial genomes into functioning single-cell factories is probably only a matter of time. On the hardware side of synthetic biology, the train is leaving the station. All we need to do is stoke the engine (by supporting foundational research in synthetic biology technology) and tell the train where to go.”

So, all we need to do is tell the nano-bio train where to go! They make it sound so easy! But many people believe that the tracks these technologies must follow have already been laid, their direction already determined by political or corporate interests.

Bucky Fuller was not one of these people. He believed the critical path technology and humanity will follow will be determined, not by politicians or corporations, but by individuals working together to create a critical mass powerful enough to direct and, as necessary, redirect the train. The discipline required to steer it? Not political or financial clout, but “the design science revolution.”

In other words, technology itself isn’t enough. It must be guided by design principles. The Ilulissat Statement is very much in harmony with ecological design principles, as are Fuller’s principles. That’s the vision of Green Technology Forum as well, to encourage the use of ecological design principles in the application of nanotechnology and biotechnology. It’s a strategy that can benefit business and consumers, and can help us build the kind of world envisioned by luminaries like Fuller and the Ilulissat group.

“As a student and fan of this great country, America, and the ideas at the heart of it, I think the wider world needs to see a demonstration of those ‘American’ values, through pharmacology, agro-ecology, and technological help for those in extreme circumstances, in their hour of need.”

Bono, “Message 2U: Guest Editor’s Letter,” Vanity Fair, July 2007

What would a demonstration of American values through technological help to those in need look like? If those in need live in Africa, where Bono focuses his attention, people need help meeting their most basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. There, affordability is everything. People there don’t starve because there’s no food, they starve because they just can’t afford it.

But can we put new, powerful technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology to work feeding people when technological development is largely driven by the quest for profit? The 206 million people who are hungry right now in sub-Saharan Africa certainly hope we can answer yes.

At Green Technology Forum we’re currently working with one of the world’s largest companies to spread new nanotechnologies that could literally save hundreds of thousands of lives. And we’re not alone. Innovative companies around the world are coming up with green nanotechnologies and biotechnologies that can make food, clothing and shelter more affordable while at the same time making a living for those who produce and sell them. But not all nano and biotech advances are intended to benefit humanity.

At Green Technology Forum the test we employ in evaluating the social justice of a new technology is simple:

“Who does it benefit?”

“How does it benefit them?”

If a technology benefits more than just an elite few, and does so in a way that does not harm others and has minimal environmental impact, we’ll pursue it. We also donate a minimum of 5 percent of our gross income to organizations dedicated to social and environmental causes.

“From here, what’s needed is a leg up, not a handout,” says Bono. Nanotechnology and biotechnology could be the answer, if we ask the right questions.

Tools extend the hand, the human reach. Not just outward in conquest–too often we have used technology to degrade life on earth when that has been our aim. But can technology help us reach inward to better understand ourselves, our role in society, and our place among all living things? I believe it can.

For one thing, it can lift us up beyond the subsistence of life without tools. Even Wendell Berry and other critics of high technology accept certain tools for their ability to raise our quality of life. Good tools help us live better, healthier lives.

But they do more than ease the drudgery of manual labor. They help us complete ourselves. A fine wood plane satisfies in its use, connects us more deeply with the source of our work, the material, and augments our inspiration and creativity. Even a scanning electron microscope can be a wonder, opening our eyes to an unseen world and helping us learn and create in ways we could never have dreamed of without it. Employed with imagination and creativity it can help us solve problems and improve quality of life significantly.

What matters is our aim in applying our tools and technologies. What do we want to accomplish? Why is it important? Who is it helping? Does it harm? We need to keep asking ourselves these questions as our tools become ever more powerful. Without proper guidance, a fine wood plane can injure a finger. An ill-conceived genetically modified organism, however, holds the potential for far greater harm. Contemplating this, I always think of how my father-in-law, a devout Christian, closes his mealtime blessings: “Lead us in the right use of your gifts.” Amen.