Peak Technology and the Societal Sweet Spot



In my previous post on peak technology and technological determinism, I talked about the idea that various technologies reach a peak of usefulness and/or performance, after which they begin to decline due to various factors, such as environmentalism, government regulation, or just change for the sake of change. I began to talk about what encourages peak technology and laid the blame at the door of technological determinism: the belief that technology must keep changing, we can’t stop it, and this is all a good thing.
The trouble is, while I was writing this piece I was watching a new documentary series on Netflix on the Unabomber, and I found myself starting to sound like the Unabomber’s treatise about the evils of technology and industrialisation. So I was heartened when, by the end of the series, a number of people (including his down-to-earth chief prison warden) argued that there was nothing wrong with the ideas that Ted Kaczinski had written down. It was just his idea that the best way to get these ideas across was to kill people that caused all the problems. And, indeed, like the other people the documentary makers talked to, it’s hard not to be puzzled by this leap.

This made me feel more reassured that the police weren’t going to kick down my door any time soon for thought crimes, and that I could advance my ideas in another post.
Another way of looking at peak technology is to think about peak society. Instead of considering technology, think about your favourite time in history. Is it now? Many people terrified by climate change would think not. Was it when you were a child, when things seemed simpler? Was it 1912, before the two world wars, when there was enough technology to create a modern world but not too much to destroy it? Or Ancient Greece, long before the Anthropocene?

Just as with technology, I’m asking you to think about the idea that a certain size and development of a society might be ideal. For example, was there a time when New York was big enough to be a thriving, vibrant city but not too big to cause social alienation, crime, unaffordability and pollution? Do you see my point? There is an ideal size and level of development, after which things get worse.
What drives size and development is the economic theory that growth is the only valid indicator of economic health. A nation whose economy is flatlining is considered to be in trouble. But as we all know, never-ending growth is eventually unsustainable. Even though scientific research has allowed us to be more efficient at growing crops to feed ourselves, and many of the population scares of the 1960s proved to be hopelessly wrong, sooner or later the world will reach a population level that is unsustainable. So, why not ask the question: what is the ideal population? What is the ideal level of economic and human activity that balances environmental health with productive activity? Where on the pathway of growth should we stop, rather than letting economic forces drive us to some cliff edge?

The answers people give will vary hugely. Extreme environmentalists would want to go back to the drawing board and wipe out humanity, or at least depopulate the Earth radically, echoing the Duke of Edinburgh’s words: ““If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” At the other end of the spectrum there would be the technophile urbanite, with visions of the surface of the Earth covered in giant buildings and crops grown with artificial light under the Earth’s surface. I’d like to think there is a happy medium, a sweet spot, a place that we could identify as a vision for humanity such that we could say, “OK, we’re going to grow towards that point and then stop. We will then have a truly sustainable society.”
Is this post a cover for anti-immigration policies? Have I swerved away from the Unabomber and into fascism? I don’t think so. What I’m saying is that we should think about striving towards something that we desire, rather than being driven mindlessly forward by theories of endless economic growth and technological advance. The Amish, who are often the butt of jokes and derision, believe they have found the technological and social sweet spot. I have respect for their vision, even if I don’t think it is viable for the entire world to adopt it. But if we don’t start thinking about peak technology, about the sweet spot, we will indeed be driven towards the apocalyptic end that is the subject of so many video games and science fiction movies.

Harry Wiren

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Making the Most Out of Other People’s Misery This is Sam McGlennon. Lets’ face it, he looks like a nice guy: honest, decent, well educated, undoubtedly with good intentions. Maybe that’s how he managed to land the ideal job. He describes himself as a “ climate risk and resilience advisor, as well as a sustainable supply chain expert, for NZ businesses and governments”. Sounds very cool, very now. I mean, advising governments , plural. Wow. Of course this might not be a real job. I mean, I write stuff, and it’s just possible that people from businesses and governments read it, so I guess I could say I advise businesses and governments. But cynicism aside, the best part of Sam’s job, what makes it ideal, is that he gets to take smug satisfaction out of the misery of millions of people who have lost their jobs and whose businesses have gone bust. How cool is that! You see Sam is a New Zealand greenie, but he represents the views of many environmentalists around the wo...
Read more
Where Will All the Electricity Come From in Our Electrically Powered Future? “ An epic number of citizens are video-conferencing to work in these lockdown times. But as they trade in a gas-burning commute for digital connectivity, their personal energy use for each two hours of  video  is greater than the share of fuel they would have consumed on a four-mile train ride. Add to this, millions of students ‘driving’ to class on the internet instead of walking. Meanwhile in other corners of the digital universe, scientists furiously deploy algorithms to accelerate research. Yet, the pattern-learning  phase  for a single artificial intelligence application can consume more compute energy than 10,000 cars do in a day.” Read more.
Read more
Image
Is it Better to Suppress Misinformation or Publicly Critique it? The best way to foster a conspiracy theory is for the authorities to try to suppress it. This has long been well known. Take UFOs. Even the Pentagon seems to have grown tired of the whole thing. In April they released videos , taken by naval aviators, of unidentified flying objects in order to “clear up misconceptions”. There’s nothing like turning the light on to dispel fears or suspicions about whatever it was that went bump in the night. But in the 21 st century social media platforms have meant that a bizarre range of conspiracy theories and misinformation take on a life of their own. Should they be allowed to fester and spread? It doesn’t seem practical to address them all publicly, and whose responsibility would that be? A government body? The Ministry of Misinformation? Please no. And, let’s face it, not all theories and misinformation could be addressed adequately, because they spawn too fast, ...
Read more