mr. marcuse, we meet again

for the record, last week, i was super duper duper angry about a reading for class.  enough so, that i formed a bond with a classmate over our mutual loathing.

we read a philosophical critique of technological fixes to climate change (particularly, carbon capture & storage) for class.  i agreed with the spirit of the paper -- a path to sustainability involves radical lifestyle changes, but its reliance on herbert marcuse's one-dimensional man as supporting evidence annoyed the hell out of me. 

it's hard to know what to do with criticisms of the "techno-industrial complex," particularly in the policy realm.  it's funny that i write that, because i often argued on mr. marcuse's side in high school debate. 

maybe it's that i'm not good with theory:  the details of history are more interesting than the models of political science.  microeconomics make sense but macro is incomprehensible.  or maybe, i'm just pragmatic.  but, why was i so infuriated by the paper?