The revolution will not be blogged, either
There are a lot of inherent contradictions in my life - and for the most part, I stand with Emerson and his claim that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Periodically someone throws at my claims that we're going to have to radically reduce our fossil fuel usage "but you are writing this on a computer" as though the fact that there's an underlying hypocrisy to this that undermines my claims. And there is a kind of hypocrisy, in the adolescent sense of the term - but the reality is that it is impossible to live in this world and the one that is coming without being a hypocrite in some measure.
Figuring out what an ethical level of hypocrisy consists of is an interesting project - and different people come down in different ways. Personally, I don't think the world would be enriched by my turning entirely to full time farming - I get to influence way more people this way. I think there's good reason to believe that the net impact of much of my time on the computer is reduced energy use in hundreds or thousands of households. On the other hand, neither do I think I could either maintain credibility or do as much good if I spent my time flying around the planet giving talks and gave up the farm. Part of my influence does depend on my walking the walk - even if I don't do it perfectly.
That said, however, when the contradictions in my life begin to bother me, I generally know that something is not being handled as well as it could be. And I feel this way about my computer time right now - as I head into ASPO's conference and then my own final push on the Adapting-In-Place Book. My life is unbalanced at the moment - and I find I mind that lack of balance both because of the costs of too much screen time (back pain, time away from my kids, etc...) and because I want to put my feet more firmly in the future.
In _Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed_, Jared Diamond observes that the vast majority of technologies create more problems then they solve. He observes in the aggregate, technology virtually always fails to keep up with the unintended consequences it generates. The more we're able to do, the more net damage we do. He observes about people who advocate one or many technical solutions to our environmental problems all seem to be making the same basic error in reasoning,
"All of our current problems are unintended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid advances in technology during the 20th century have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that's why we're in the situation in which we now find oursleves. What makes you think that, as of January 1, 2006, for the first time in human history, technology will miraculously stop causing new unanticipated problems while it just solves the problems it previously produced?" (Diamond, 505)
To me, this query of Diamond's is an important reminder that we have blinders on when it comes to the real feasibility of our solutions. For example, let us consider one commonly discussed strategy to address global warming - telecommuting. If only we could just get all those workers out of the office, we wouldn't have to heat those offices, we wouldn't have people sitting in traffic, etc... And that might even be true. Now it is worth noting that this is a solution heavily weighted to the benefit of rich folk - the person who cleans your toilet, the person who builds your house, the person who cooks the dinner you normally get by take out, those folks aren't going to be permitted to telecommute - in fact, some will lose their jobs. But that in itself isn't an argument against widespread telecommuting.
But the problem is that all those telecommuters would be buying more and better technology for their homes in order to be able to do the work they normally do at the office, and spending more time overnighting documents, heating their own homes, and doing all sorts of other things. Now it might well turn into a net gain - you never know. But it is worth noting, for example that recent evidence suggests that all of us on our computers are a huge global warming problem. All those new computers would be built and shipped, as would all that new software, and those extra laptops and fax machines, and the old ones would go leak mercury into the groundwater in Lagos (Did you know that when your computer dies, it gets to take a long vacation to a poor nation to be disposed of?)
Now I'm not opposed to telecommuting solutions per se, but I think it is worth noting, for example that the miracles of computer technology have not come with the environmental miracles we were already promised. Remember how we were supposed to all go paperless, and it would save a billion trees a year or more? Didn't happen - worldwide paper usage rose by 4%, and it rose faster in the developing world. Remember how we were supposed to be getting greater efficiency from lower energy use - it turns out that between 2000 and 2005, worldwide energy emissions rose by 3 times what had been expected, and much of that was in the US, Europe and Australia, so we can't blame China for everything. Oh, and I bet you remember all the extra free time we were told we'd have, in a new "leisure society" - that didn't happen either.
Now I'm a Luddite by inclination and political persuasion. For those who aren't familiar with them, the word "Luddite" does not actually mean, as it has come to in the popular parlance, "someone who hates or is afraid of technology for no particular reason."
The original Luddites were those who were angered at the notion that they ought to sacrifice their livelihoods and starve to death in order to serve "progress." They demanded that technology be bounded by recognition of human needs. They lost the battle (did you notice?) despite the leadership of the mythical "Ned Ludd," and mostly were executed or starved. But they were right in part. They weren't afraid of technology - they simply didn't think that they should be sacrificed for the greater economic good. Now we've become used to the notion that "creative destruction" is a part of life, that we should lose jobs and bear the costs because of some abstract greater good. We are so accustomed to this thinking we hardly notice it - but the simple fact is that economic systems are intended to serve us, not the other way around, and so is technology.
Modern Luddism is very simple - it merely observes that technology has consequences, and technologies shouldn't be adopted without a clear eyed analysis of their net benefits and consequences. All technology requires a real assurance that the technology is improving lives more than it is harming them. This is complicated of course - my computer improves my life, whereas children living in the garbage dumps of Lagos or being flooded in Pakistan might argue that my computer and its emissions are pretty destructive. But something being difficult or complex doesn't free us from the moral responsibility to do the right thing.
My preference is for less dependence, rather than more, simpler rather than harder, things you can fix rather than things you have to throw away, lasting things rather than ephemeral ones, human power rather than fossil power or at least renewable energies.
Which brings me back to the computer, which is not lasting, is complex, often needs to be thrown away and cannot be fixed - or is more costly to fix than replace. I am fond of mine. I make part of my living as a writer, and as a blogger. I even came to understand the emergence of modern luddism on the computer, ironically enough. The internet is bringing a lot of people together who might never have been aware of environmentalism.
And yet, all this time we spend blogging, and reading other blogs, and emailing each other has consequences. Some of them are the technological ones - when the computers break down, we replace them. We buy new software and games and update our stuff and require big servers, and all that good stuff, along with all the time we spend talking about our sustainability goals is warming up the planet. It is so easy and so compelling to let the computers off the hook - after all, aren't we changing the world? Don't we need all this information at our fingertips? We don't stop to count the costs of the infrastructure very often.
Well, it turns out that all this information isn't making us better informed. We're about as stupid as we used to be, according to several recent polls I've seen. And it isn't changing the world, either. Our energy usage is going up, while we all sit around and talk about how to get it down - and while the climate warms faster and faster and faster. And just as some elements of the internet have saved us some energy and made some people's lives better, it is complicated. I know none of us like to hear this, of course. A lot of us derive a lot of satisfaction from the internet. But overwhelmingly, it isn't making us smarter, or know more, saving us energy or changing the world. It is just another technology, doing some good and some bad.
What about community? After all, that's what the internet gives us, right, the chance to bond with people like us. Well I love that too - don't get me wrong - but I hear more and more from people who say they can't get along with the people they actually live near, who are on an endless quest for people just like them, to spend their future with the mythical community of perfectly like-minded people. I hear more and more that someone can't have a relationship with their neighbors and the people near them, and need to move somewhere else.
Now that can be true - there are places that are just disheartening after a while. But the sheer number of people I hear from in those places suggest to me that there's more too it. Perhaps that's an unintended consequence of the internet, no? Now that we've experienced the joy of little clubs filled entirely with people focused on X or Y shared thing, we're less able to get along with the people whose common connection to us is a place, or a history or a more formal relationship?
And while the internet brings us closer together when we're far away, it also makes it easier to *be* far away - just like cars do. It is great that technology enables Grandma to be in Iowa, Mom working in Michigan and the Grandkids at college in Florida and Ireland and still talk every weekend by skype webcam and come together on the holidays by planes - but we shouldn't forget that without those technologies, one or two of them might actually be living nearby. Maybe they wouldn't - lots of families have always been apart, but in many cases, the goal was to get back together. You left the old country and then brought over your sisters and your parents and your kids. Now we don't have to get back together.
Screen time is associated with mental illness and depression in both adults and children, and overwhelmingly, adults rate their screen time as less pleasurable than time they spend with other people - even when they are nominally "connecting" with others by computer. It may be that the internet creates some of the problems it also relieves.
Don't get me wrong - I love the internet, and I've been its beneficiary in many ways. But our computers aren't doing for us what they are purported to do, and it is worth being clear about this. I'm not suggesting we turn them all off all the time - but perhaps more of us could spend less time on the computer, or share them more. Perhaps your household only needs one, or none - perhaps you could use the library computer a few times a week.
The thing is, it isn't just that X technology won't save us (insert preferred technofantasy where "X" is - hydrogen, desert sized solar panels, electric cars, etc...), it is that all of them won't save us. There's simply no way, as Diamond points out, of only producing "good" technologies - that's not how it works. Pouring billions of dollars into R and D for how to make a better solar panel or wind generator isn't going to fix the problem - and at some point, we aren't going to have billions.
The only way we can fix the problem is to back up. We have spent several centuries asking "can we do it?" And often enough the answer was a resounding "yes we can!" But instead, what we need to ask is this - should we do it? We need to switch away from the engineering mode and towards the ethical. Perhaps we might even begin to imagine that in some areas, we have done sufficient R and D.
What a radical concept that is, and how alien from the notion that we will always be able to make things better by simply taking the next step. I'm not trying to hinder science - I have no objection to tinkerers tinking away. But instead of devoting our economy to technical research, and to funding it with our government or with our personal dollars, spent on R and D after we buy stuff they've already developed, what if we tried to optimize what we already have?
What if instead of turning vast resources to making more things and different ones, we backed up and started asking "what is the best way for us to get what we need?" What if we took a look back at intermediate technologies, and considered how we might improve them. A plant geneticist of my acquaintance once observed that if we'd put the same energies and money into breeding open pollinated corn as we have into hybrids, there's no telling what we'd have.
The same is true about a technological society that thinks that the next step is already better. What would happen if we backed up, and thought about how we could improve the wood cookstove, the solar oven or the hand washer, and turned the same energies to that as we turn to developing the even tinier cell phone with an even better video program in it?
But this would undercut the market, some will cry. Yes, it would. The same market that has given us unchecked climate change and absolutely no viable solutions of any kind for it since the death of Copenhagen. This would impede scientific progress - well, maybe. But maybe not - we tend to see science as unhindered, but of course, its progress is wholly determined by where we put money and also by a host of ways that we value certain disciplines and projects over others. There is no inherent reason why it is more important to go out into space than it is to know the identity of every amphibian on the planet. And yet, we put vastly more resources to one than another. These too are choices, and they are not unfettered.
Given the failure of markets (as the Stern report puts it, climate change is the greatest market failure in history) and the failure of technologies to be unambiguous, what's left to us? The fossil fuels really aren't infinite. The planet is vastly less habitable to most people at 4 or 5 or 6 degrees warmer than it is now. These failures result in livelihoods destroyed and will be measured in dead bodies - they are measured in dead bodies.
It is the height of foolishness when something has failed miserably to keep tying one's hopes to the same thing. So I would propose the intercession of the ethical - the Luddite's solution. Unless we are willing to ask "is this really good for us, now and forever?" we are likely to be trapped in the assumption that the next thing will magically set us free. And it won't. The next thing will further invest us, and move us a little closer not to a solution, but to a collapse. What we want is to step away from the collapse - and the answer there is simple. Need less. Use less. Substitute human power and human scale tools for fossil based power and industrial scale tools. Back up. Slow down. Remember, the price isn't what we think it is.
That doesn't mean there is no price, that doesn't make it easy. But as I said before - but that is the merit of the ethical mode - it does its best work when things aren't easy.\
For myself, I'm tied to my computer a little longer by obligation. And if that were the only reason, I'd probably send back my book advance (it isn't very much money anyway) and resign my board membership - I'm just not that big a hypocrite. Except that what I do now does reverbate. So I'm trying to find some measure of balance - and a gradual path for turning off and down and finding other ways.