In economics, there are certain levels of production we classify as "unattainable" This however can be changed by the increase in Technology. Movement form the human labour force type of production to a capital intensive one. In Economics hen we speak of capital intensiveness we do not refer to "money used to start a business" per ser but we also refer to machinery used.
It argued that labour-intensive methods do not readily adopt to change. Capital-intensive method can however, easily be adjusted to suit modern trends in production due to their flexibility.
2. The farmer, for instance using capital-intensive methods of production can produce far more than the one using labour-intensive means. Capital-intensive methods are therefore clearly associated with high levels of output. For this reason poor countries must opt for this method if they increase their pace of development.
3. It is believed that developed countries such as the United States, Britain, Japan, France, Germany and recently, China have attained their levels of development by adopting capital-intensive methods of production. Therefore developing economies must also invest heavily in this technique of production in order to develop. This is a historical reason rather than an economic one.
In spite of the reasons advanced in favor of the two methods of production, and against the other, it is important that the two techniques of production be married in order for any economy to achieve sustainable economic development.
So going back to the question, adpting new technology can/does eliminate porverty because if our level of output is high, unemployment might be cut off as the industries will start to employ people to process stuff. If substantial farmers were to adopt these tech-strategies, yields would increase.