IN reply to John Porter (Letters, January 11), while agreeing that technology has brought many benefits, it has also exacted a heavy toll. We have the squandering of finite resources, pollution, global warming, extinct species, industrial diseases and the stress of modern living, to name but a few effects. It isn't the technology that is at fault, rather the thoughtless, greedy or naive way in which it has been implemented.

The so-called Greens are only trying to point out that resources like oil and gas are indeed finite, will eventually run out, and that alternatives need to be found.

The majority of 'Greens' are not Luddites. They don't oppose technological change, rather they seek to use technology to implement a sustainable improvement in the quality of our environment and, thus, our quality of life. In many cases, it is the greed of governments and a few industrialists that has placed the world in its present predicament, and it should be up to these people to fund the technology required to find a real solution. And there are real alternatives available.

Instead, we have, for example, the rushed implementation of catalytic converters for cars so that we can all feel that we are doing our bit for the environment.

What we really have is an item that uses precious metals (one of which is only available in South Africa, produces carcinogens, and is ineffective on short journeys. And what happens to the old ones when they are replaced?

All this so that we can continue to use vehicles fuelled by oil. And who makes lots of money from oil revenue? Yes, you guessed right - it is the governments and industrialists.

So yes, we do need technology, but let's implement it with foresight and not greed. What we don't need is Mr Porter's full-steam-ahead, gung-ho attitude to technological advancement and its consequent pitfalls.

LYNDA AND PHIL RYDER, Richmond Terrace, Darwen.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.