Ecological Footprint

Computer-aided design as examined by ecological impact is a moral evil. The environment in which CAD operates is a toxic one. Computers are toxic, and their ecological footprint is a deep one. Pollutants include non-biodegradable plastic (what this author thinks of as "forever plastic"), PVC's and their concomitant dioxins, and toxic elements [4,5, 6]. These products leave trails, though. Plastic pollutants fill landfills, clutter streets, and make a plastic soup of the great pacific gyres [7]; PVC's are produced, thus releasing the systemic toxin dioxin into the atmosphere; the extraction of elements require slag heaps and open-pit mining. Morever, computers require energy usage, resulting in nuclear waste, carbon emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired plants, or the stream-choking dams that give us hydroelectric power [8, 9].

The problems with computer-caused pollution are compounded by constant upgrading, producing massive amounts of hard waste. The disposal of hard waste inevitably allows some of the aforementioned toxic elements to leach into water tables and into waterways, thus poisoning them [6].

The only things saved (moral goods) are paper, the woods that give us paper, and mylar (a petroleum byproduct) [10]. Here the moral good is outweighed by the forgoing moral evil.

It should be noted that the purchase and usage of computers not mandated by CAD alone, but by larger societal demands. CAD then takes advantage of the existing moral evil that is computer's impact on the environment, not creating the problem but taking advantage of it.