The definition of appropriate technology is simple: technology that is “appropriate” for a given setting. The most common use of the term is in the field of international development, which normally refers to work done in poor countries which lack an infrastructure to provide the modern basics of living (food, water, shelter, fuel for cooking, etc).
In some ways, appropriate technology has little to do with simple living - the theme of this series of articles. On the other hand, if a person in a developed country wanted to live a simple life, they might choose to borrow technologies that aren’t necessarily “appropriate” for their own environment, but which would serve to save energy, save money, reduce consumption or be less polluting.
Sun
For instance, I have an electric stove on which to cook dinner. I have a nice oven too, and all I have to do is turn the knob and push the button to produce lots of heat. But I know that the sun produces lots of heat too, so if I could use the sun to cook dinner, I’d save electricity, save money, and cause no pollution. I could use “inappropriate” technology to help me live a simple life. A few years ago I actually tried this, building a solar cooker out of a computer box, tin foil, white glue, newspaper, and a pane of glass. It was a bulky contraption, but it did indeed cook dinner using nothing more than the sun. 
There is lots of interest in solar energy today, for cooking, for sterilizing water, and of course for producing electricity. There is even a solar car, a solar shower for camping and passive solar heating of modern buildings. Some of these examples are very low tech, other very high tech, but they all are non-polluting use of readily available cheap energy.
Water
We have plenty of sun to go around, but in some places there isn’t enough water. Those of us lucky enough to live where there is plentiful clean water still have to pay for it. Whether for financial or environmental reasons, there are ways we can use less water. If we think rainwater stored in a tank is not clean enough to drink (though many around the world do get their drinking water from their roof), it could at least be used to water the flowers and to wash our cars. We can opt for water saver toilets, or to reuse gray water for irrigating the garden.
Housing
Indigenous houses from cultures around the world often use locally available materials in some pretty clever ways. A few builders in North America have found ways (if building codes permit), to build houses from straw bales, adobe brick, bamboo, and of course, stones. Also, rammed earth is making a comeback as a building style that has low environmental impact. But if we can’t build a house from locally available sticks and stones, there are at least things we can do to make a house “greener.”
So is the simple life about saving money and being kinder to the environment? Because I would not call your solar cooker simple (or time efficient).
I don’t think it’s about saving money so much as consciously avoiding materialism and wealth. If simple living was just about efficiency, it would probably consume more resources than a non-simple life. For example, it’s more efficient for me to buy a Tivo and watch television at my convenience than to plan my schedule around the TV shows I want to watch. But that’s not the simple life. The real simple life would be to get rid of my TV entirely.
I go with the Tivo… greatest thing since sliced bread!
Jasen said, “Because I would not call your solar cooker simple (or time efficient).
My solar cooker is simple using the original definition I gave in part 1–consciously using less than I could. It uses less electricity (=less money) than my electric stove. It is also simple in an engineering sense, which is what makes it appropriate for developing communities.
No, it is not time efficient, strictly speaking. But, you can use a solar cooker like you use a crockpot, where you put the food in and then leave it while you go do something else. You need to return to the box once an hour to rotate it so that it tracks the sun.
Personal note here: I feel sad and sorry for the hard working women of the underdeveloped world who have to scrounge farther and farther from home to find firewood to cook their husbands’ dinner. In areas where deforestation is a problem, this is especially acute. So something like a computer box turned into a solar cooker could be a good thing. (Of course, a solar cooker is foreign technology, so making acceptable in that culture is another issue.)
If you ever come to Florida, you’ll have to give us lessons! We tried to cook rice in a variety of homemade solar cookers last year, but it never happened. (of course it was November, so not the peak of the hot season, but hey it was Florida and we thought it would work anyway). I always get a thrill from hanging my clothes on the line and thinking about capturing that energy to do some work, even if it is as simple as drying laundry. It’s one simplified thing in my (sort of) high tech life.
I had some interesting results when I cooked in my solar cooker. For one thing, vegetables were much harder to cook than meats were. During the really hot part of the day it worked to bake things, but since it works best to keep the dish covered, the baked goods can be soggy. And, you must use black pots. I can’t remember if I ever tried rice, but I except with my set up it would have only worked with a small portion.