You and the OP are attributing some strange ideas to “Greens.”
So who are these “Greens” that you’re talking about?
The political party?
People who self-identify as green?
Some whackos?
Perhaps some people who self-identify as “greens” do have an anti-technology stance, but I doubt that most of them do. I sure don’t.
Okay, let me try to explain what I meant. The author in question was discussing the human lifespan in the context that some people claim we can live to be 200 years old if we just eat fruit and nuts and breath clean air (or whatever conditions fit the latest craze).
He claims that the fact is, the human body was only meant to live to be 90+ years old. There’s an evolutionary benefit to grandparenting, which is why people stick around to be grandparenting age. The NUMBERS of people reaching that age have gotten higher. More people survive childhood and can control certain diseases.
However, the actual maximum age has not changed. People used to live to be 102 a hundred years ago. People sometimes live to be 102 now. Maybe more people make it to old age, but there’s no evidence that the human body can survive past what we now consider “old age.”
I think that’s getting off the topic of the post a bit, but I wanted to clarify what I said anyway.
I think knowing what we do about sanitation and germs/diseases would be quite helpful. Notably unhelpful would be knowing exactly what you’re about to die from but can do nothing about.
Consider that in the Travels of Marco Polo (dating from the 14th century) the author claimed that certain eastern ascetics sometimes lived “even as long as 120 years”. Today, with modern medicine and a world population in the billions, the absolute proven limit of human survival is… about 120 years.
Mainly, the ones who think we can use no nuclear power whatsoever, significantly reduce oil and coal consumption, and still survive in a reasonable fashion. I don’t know if this is a party line or just a few outliers.
How does that imply an “anti-technology” bias?
Because all technology depends upon energy.
The whole point of my post was that being against one thing necessarily implies you are against the things it depends upon, because technologies are interrelated and cannot function without each other. You cannot have the sea without the rush of its many waters, you cannot have aircraft without airports, and you cannot have an industrial society without a good source of energy.