Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLII
We Need Degrowth Not An Expansion of Complex Technologies
Today’s Contemplation has been prompted by a conversation with another on the Degrowth — join the revolution Facebook Group I am a member of after his posting of an article by Dr. David Suzuki that advocates energy efficiency/conservation and the rapid and widespread pursuit of complex, industrial technologies to address climate change. Once again, I share this conversation to disclose my thinking about our predicament and what is/is not possible through my lens.
Me: More technology to try and support status quo complexities is the exact opposite of what is needed to address the underlying predicament of ecological overshoot. What is needed to help mitigate the inevitable repercussions of our plight is significant degrowth, including our technology use. Not advocating for it and exacerbating our dilemma in the process.
LN: i’d like to offer a distinction about “technology.”
There is a handful of people in our circles who have decided that all forms of “technology” are bad… And one or two who have made a mantra out of saying that any form of civilization is unsustainable.
I would like to redeem the phrase, “technology.”
“Technology” is simply the application of science to anything in the real world.
“Technology” can be an idea, a philosophy, a plan, a tool, a machine… Or any number of other things.
“Technology” — and literally almost any specific technology — is not necessarily good or bad; what determines whether or not a technology is beneficial is some combination of what it is, where and how it is applied, and how much it is utilized.
There are absolutely technologies — including advanced technologies, and powered technologies — that can result, overall, in less ecological harm and less energy consumption… And so on.
There are so many examples… From fiber optics to simple solar ovens, to increasingly effective passive air conditioning architecture, to organic and regenerative farming techniques…
Even in many industrial processes, we might be close to turning a corner where improved efficiency is no longer increase rates of extraction and consumption. (Though not nearly close enough to try to “push through” without radical, rapid degrowth.)
It’s 0 500 here, and I haven’t slept yet… So I’m not sure what the precise phrasing should be…
But I think we need to be more careful with the word, “technology.”
We don’t want to build our way out of our problems…
We shouldn’t try to rely on techno fixes that don’t address fundamental issues.
We absolutely must rapidly and radically adopt “degrowth “approaches.
But, “technology” is not the enemy — technological advancements will always be allies, if they are utilized or shelved in appropriate ways, on appropriate scales.
LN: As it stands, I certainly agree with the statement “more technology to try and support status quo complexities is the opposite of what is needed…”
I agree that technology for that purpose would be a mistake.
But drawing on technologies that can help us with rapid degrowth, and with surviving the coming decades of material austerity… Wisely and prudently… is an important resource for our goals.
Me: Let’s be clear, my comment is referring to complex, industrial technologies — especially the type advocated by Dr. Suzuki in this article. I am not referring to something like a hand-made digging stick, although, there’s a good argument to be made that any technology that allows humans to create surpluses (particularly food) that contribute to exponential population increase places us upon the trajectory of overshoot and societal collapse as evidenced by the past 10,000 years of complex society pre/history.
LN: although there is too little evidence to the contrary… I am not yet ready to give up the idea that human beings could evolve to a point of living within nature’s means, even when we have the ability to destroy it.
Going back to the “technology” topic… There are even some “complex” and technically “industrial”/mechanized technologies that could be beneficial for rapid degrowth approaches.
The biggest question I can think of along those lines is whether or not we will be able to maintain any advanced technologies through the coming ecological collapses.
It sounds like we are very close to on the same page about the most important things… And I’m sure we would be able to sort this out on a case by case basis, if we were God kings in charge of the whole show.
Me: We’ll have to agree to disagree, primarily because I don’t see any evidence over the past 10,000 years that our species can do better.
While the possibility of us surpassing our instinctual drives exists, the probability (based upon our pre/history and the various sociological, psychological, and physiological/evolutionary processes that impact our behaviours) is about as close to zero as one could get.
Hope springs eternal in our quest to counter the anxiety-provoking thoughts that arise from our insight into our numerous plights (of our own making)…but the evidence in my opinion leans heavily upon us following the more destructive and ultimately suicidal path — perhaps primarily because it’s being mostly driven by those that stand to ‘profit’ from it (such is the nature of large, complex societies and their power/wealth structures).
Ultimately, it’s all stories and not one of us knows for certain how it all ends…and because our anxiety-riddled species deplores uncertainty, we very willingly cling to those that provide hope in the face of tragedy even if the story is taking us down the wrong path and making our predicament worse. We believe it. We advocate for it. And, we defend it against naysayers. It’s our nature as walking, talking, story-telling apes that tend to deny reality to avoid anxiety.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.