Do You See Technology From a Complete Perspective?

 

Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia

I spend a considerable amount of time discussing problems and predicaments and how they relate to the conditions we find ourselves amidst. I often point out how technology use causes ecological overshoot, and that overshoot is the root predicament causing all the symptom predicaments. We are conditioned to see technology through the lens of how great it is, and it is true that technology provides us with a myriad of benefits. One look at modern medicine and antibiotics tells us that these benefits are both miraculous and ingenious. Going back to the bedrock technology of agriculture which supports civilization reinforces those thoughts of how awesome technology is. 

Most modern technology has three requirements: extraction (mining), energy use, and civilization. One of the primary support structures of civilization is technology use, which leverages far more energy and resource throughput than we could ever manage without it. Agriculture is one of the primary forms of technology, but what all the technologies have in common is that they reduce or remove negative feedbacks which used to limit our numbers. This produces the self-reinforcing positive feedback of population growth (a symptom predicament of ecological overshoot) which fosters yet more technology use in a vicious cycle. Technology use has many benefits, but few people ever look at the cost for this and the effects it produces (ecological overshoot, with all its symptom predicaments). The cost is in the destruction of the biosphere through the required extraction (mining), energy use, and system of civilization combined with the effects it produces (overshoot). In other words, what society is doing by using technology is temporarily improving conditions for ourselves but wiping out the source and sustenance of our very existence by doing so.

Being able to see that technology has both good and bad qualities is important in order to develop a well-rounded and complete picture of technology. The Maximum Power Principle, being a biological imperative, demonstrates why technology use will not be reduced by society until forced to by nature. While an individual or small group might reject technology use (most commonly an Indigenous culture which understands the facts of what I wrote in the above paragraph), most of society will not because of the advantages, protections, ease of use, and convenience that technology provides. Ask a person if he or she would be willing to give up electricity and see what kinds of answers you get. Every once in a while, you may find someone who is willing to give it up, but that is an extremely rare scenario. The far more common answer is, "Hell no!"

I previously wrote an article attempting to point out these details, extolling why promoting technology use is not a good thing. Most of society will probably remain in the dark about this, unfortunately, due to the prevailing narratives surrounding most of today's cultures. For a wider view on this subject, simply search for the word "wetiko" on my blog. You will find many articles which contain different articles and books and other media explaining precisely what it is and how it affects all of us in one way or another. Some people know this as colonialism; wetiko is the Indigenous word for it. Most of us today in Western cultures are blind to wetiko and don't realize we suffer from it. I often post this article from Russell Means to help explain what it is.

It is this very level of thought (wetiko) that promulgates the idea that technology can solve the problems and predicaments that technology and its use cause, and this idea is false. Unfortunately, many people are blinded by false beliefs which render them unable to admit or accept the reality that replacing one form or part of a system with another form or part of a system doesn't really change anything to the whole system. For instance, replacing coal-fired generation of electricity with wind- or solar-powered generation of electricity or nuclear-powered generation of electricity changes nothing because it is electricity ITSELF which is unsustainable.  Since civilization is unsustainable, any subset of that system, such as how electricity is generated or how efficient any particular system or set of systems is, is entirely irrelevant. The system of civilization will remain unsustainable regardless of electricity generation. Every civilization which has ever existed collapsed at one point or another due to overshoot. The overshoot condition every time was facilitated by technology use, which reduced or removed the negative feedbacks which once kept population constant. This allowed population growth each time to rise to a level which could not be maintained, and collapse then ensued.

Speaking of technology use facilitating ecological overshoot, in a new article, Tom Murphy pointed it out definitively right here, quote:

"8. Technology facilitated the predicament, and constitutes an inappropriate response, as we will never master all knowledge and will inevitably create unintended consequences.

9. An energy substitute for fossil fuels is the last thing we need, as energy is what powers our expanding terminal encroachment on the living world."

So, the constant stream of so-called "solutions" constantly and consistently being hyped by folks who don't know any better (along with a few who do know better) really only serve in a futile attempt at maintaining civilization, something which cannot be accomplished because of civilization being inherently unsustainable to begin with.

I'll post a few of the more notable recent examples of these ideas shortly, but first I want to post Nate Hagen's latest Frankly video regarding COP28 and the COP meetings in general. Nate proposes a rather unique way to start the proceedings with a series of questions, several which are very interesting. A couple of them are hilarious, but for the serious ones, one brings up lack of agency as part of the question, and they all ask pertinent questions about why so far all the COPs have more or less failed to bring emissions down. A couple of the questions even mention overshoot!

Now, onto the previously mentioned recent examples of ideas [the so-called "solutions"] above. Alice Friedemann points one out here in her article about an article in the New York Times regarding biofuels (ethanol from corn in this idea) for the airline industry. It's titled, "Do You Want to Eat, Drink, or Fly?" and the title is actually quite accurate. Tim Garrett says this about the developments at COP28 (based on this study). Now, anyone who understands that civilization is unsustainable and realizes that today's version of civilization, industrial civilization, is collapsing NOW will also know that due to Jevons Paradox and civilizational inertia (in Tim Garrett's paper above) why these next two ideas are destined for failure (here and here). It is always so interesting just how energy (and overshoot) blind some people are. The sad truth to all of this is that all these competing ideas will likewise be in competition for the same limited energy and mineral resources to build all of this at the same time all the energy that is currently available is necessary just to keep civilization humming along (see the Red Queen hypothesis and Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies).  

Quite frankly, the hoopla given to all these ideas isn't deserved, especially once one realizes the truth regarding civilization, wetiko, and our species' storytelling and rationalizing skills, which top our ability to think rationally collectively. You and I can clearly see that not only will these ideas not solve anything, but that they will actually take us backwards in our quest to reduce overshoot, the only activity which would reduce the symptom predicaments it causes (such as climate change, emissions, food and water security, population growth, energy and resource decline, biodiversity loss, extinction, etc., etc.). Despite our ability to see this reality, we have no way to get everyone to see it from the same lens due to people's individual worldviews, cultures, and belief systems. The "solution" ideas are nothing more than snake oil being marketed and hyped to profit from these predicaments by those who hope to "make it big" before industrial civilization collapses. Because most of society still believes technology to be able to solve problems and because most of society doesn't understand the difference between a problem and a predicament, most of society therefore does not see technology from a complete perspective; one which can view BOTH the good AND bad qualities and the self-reinforcing positive feedback that technology use propagates into civilization making it unsustainable.

Until next time, Live Now!