All technology, by definition, is artificial. But there is a continuum of environmental impact depending on the technology and environment—digging a hole in the dirt with a wooden stick has negligible effects on the health of the local ecosystem; digging a hole in the dirt with a nuclear pulse device not so much.

But nuclear pulse devices are excellent for propulsion if you need to move stuff between planets, and have negligible environmental impact in the already radiation-soaked vaccuum of space.

[–] StrayCatFrump 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All technology, by definition, is artificial.

Probably passive (taking advantage of energy and natural laws already present in the environment, like wind and convection) vs. active (making use of secondary forms of power like electricity, burning fuels, etc.) is a better distinction. If all you gotta do is e.g. at most open some vents at one time of day and close them at another, and not rely on the delivery of external power sources from human industry, calling it "passive" is pretty fair.

[–] Shurimal@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I like this passive vs. active distinction. A sailboat vs. a motor ship. And a hybrid approach that uses naturally occuring energy flows when feasible; artificial energy sources when not.