I don't think its possible to relegate technology as wholly good or bad. The debate is more complex than providing opposing examples such as penicillin and nerve gas. But what one can say regarding technology is that it amplifies human potential: we seek to expedite communication and we invent the internet; we desire more efficient ways of killing one another and we design the first machine gun. Technology sheerly reflects the intent of the inventor. So will technology save our environment from ourselves? Only if we will it so. But think about what that takes! We need the political will to divert massive amounts of resources to research and development for more efficient and environmentally benign technologies ranging from solar panels to hydrogen cars. We need to aid the developing world so much that they skip the traditional "industrializing" process and employ "green" technologies while ascending a relatively rigid human framework considered "development". To say that technology will unequivocally and inevitably halt the Earth's degradation (let alone replenish its ecosystems) is to overlook the enormous obstacle that someone must invent those technologies, someone must implement those technologies.

That leads us to regard our incentives for innovation - wealth. Our capitalist system operates by rewarding innovators of technology and industry with extreme personal wealth. But it also requires investment of time, energy, and finance. For any project to get off the ground one needs money and time. And to put in those initial investments one must have a reasonable expectation of returns. If an economic landscape or industry's future is questionable, one can expect that innovation in that sector will be more timid. Again, technology does not create itself! For those that stand by the notion that technology alone is humanity's salvation, I would redirect the conversation and ask: then how do we encourage the investment and implementation of such technology?