Will Sustainability Kill The Singularity?
I’m a big fan of Maker Magazine and the Maker Blog. Not that I’m much of a Maker, at all. I’m a little too clumsy to be in the ranks with these guys.
But, even if I’m not a whiz at the electronics kit, I can still enjoy the shear innovative genius of the magazine’s writers and columnists. This last issue–about the sustainability movement– was no exception.
As I leafed through the pages, I noticed that there was more than a hint of negativity in the issue’s approach to technology and progress. One article, for instance, offered tips on ways you can use your own waste. It even seemed to laud the old practice, when life expectancy was dismal, of taking human waste and spreading it on fields. (After it was properly treated… if you believe that one.)
I won’t pick on Make Magazine. Think about how words are generally used in the media. What about “energy.” In the past, that was a positive term; now, it has the same feel as “greed” or “destruction.”
There is a fine line between Sustainability and the Luddite movement. Are we crossing that line? What will be the ramifications?
I doubt we’re about to enter a technological Dark Age. Saving energy and trying to be careful about what we produce is a good thing.
Like all movements, the swing of the pendulum goes from extreme to extreme before it rights itself. Proponents may begin to see the light when they observe effects of the anti-technology movement.
For instance, Google’s server farms use an enormous amount of energy; one stat is that they use more energy than all the television sets in the nation. Would you lose instant access to information around the globe to be more sustainable without Google?
Of course not. Some clever innovator out there might be using his search engine to discover the next clean power source, or a energy-positive way to produce fuel by splitting water molecules.
I don’t believe that technology will solve all our problems.
I know that without technology; however, we’ll have nothing, but problems.
Related posts:
- First, Kill All The Bloggers… Blogger Population Almost As Big As Legal Industry
- The Secret Of The Wealth Singularity
- The Singularity and the Post-Political World
- Santa’s Singularity Secret: How Tech Powers the North Pole Operation (and Maybe Your Home One Day)
- Nobody Said The Singularity Would Be Easy
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
is one of my favorite financial books of all time. It's an allegory about a guy who has a terrible job, and how he overcomes challenges to achieve his dreams.
Technology surely creates more problems than it solves. Without technology, we would have far fewer problems. We wouldn’t have material wealth like we have either. We took a bite of the apple, believing that with technology and material progress that we could one day ‘get ahead’ of the problems. We certainly need that day to get here soon! I hope that it does.
Hi Michael–
Thanks for the comment. I’m sure there are others who would agree.
And technology, like all of man’s creations, can create and destroy.
But I’m interested in how you managed to post a comment and run a web site without technology?
Anyone that thinks technology “creates more problems that it solves” isn’t very smart. Try living without electricity, antibiotics,clothes, telephones, or indoor plumbing, just to name a few examples.
Hey MD. Maybe “not smart” isn’t the right phrase. I think they’re just not looking at things correctly. If there’s an opposite of rose-colored glasses, I’d say people who hate echnology is bad are wearing them.
The worst portion of the sustainability movement is probably a bunch of technology hating people who would cite nuclear weapons, pollution, deforestation, overpopulation, etc. Those are real problems, but everyone can see those problems. But another portion of the sustainability movement seems to say something that isn’t obvious, that technology is great but only if we use it properly. In some ways, technology enables inefficiency of resources. Some stress the benefits of local agriculture as a partial solution. I don’t think you should have made fun of using human waste. To ignore human waste as a part of this issue is to ignore the crux of the issue: material and resource management. Basically, can we find a more efficient organization of resources? I think the answer is probably yes. It doesn’t go against technological progress. Technology and resource management would both go toward human welfare anyway.
Hi Matthew.
Great comment. Well put.
I didn’t mean to necessarily make fun of using human waste. But, as you get to the center of my argument, allowing people to treat their own waste is an inefficient management of resources. Something that technology can better assist. I imagine waste would be an excellent source of energy, for instance.