SFW's second googledocs debate, to explore the future and philosophy:
Nature and Technology
Nature and Technology
Dichotomy or Not?
Zack: Do we have to choose one or the other? Do we have to wholly embrace nature or technology at the expense of the other? I would argue that it’s really more a spectrum, with each providing many options. What do you think?
Beck: I would prefer an inclusive attitude. There are plenty of ways we already do both, with little harm to the environment, but the bottom line always seems to trump the most effective ways of making the combination work well. If you can’t sell it, it’s not a good idea.
Zack: Is that a problem inherent to humanity, or part of our culture-of-the-moment/zeitgeist?
Beck: at this point, I cannot see any evidence that it’s just a current problem. Trading currency has been around as long as language. If you look at things like petroleum vs non-fossil fuel, we’ve had a variety of more natural methods of energy production which simply fall out of favor due to ubiquitous nature of our power grid. Why don’t farmers use windmills to power their wells anymore?
Zack: Because a more efficient technology supplanted it. My worry is that, as a culture, we seem to ignore the problems technologies present well after it’s established and agreed that the problem exists. If the analysis led to effective change, I’d be much less worried in the power of technology to self-correct.
Beck: Certainly! Everywhere, in every endeavor, I see a lack of analysis. Unintended consequences are my enemy.
Zack: So, is technological/biological harmony at least capable of being achieved? As in, is at least a theoretical possibility, logistical issues aside. Some would say it is not. That we’re head toward a “singularity” where technology just takes everything over b/c it’s better for us.
Beck: I do think it is possible. One place I see it working is in the medical field. We have many scientists developing surgical techniques, cloning, bacterial mods, nano-tech, where the ethics and tech are growing in tandem.
Zack: I tend to agree. Though at least in the US, we have massive bureacratic/organizational problems around keeping our populace healthy. But yes, we have been historically good at achieving innovation. I think that’s a good segue for the next topic…
Innovation/Rapid Development
Zack: So, a trend I notice, especially in my country, is the desire for rapid innovation. Innovation seems to trump all things. A reason sometimes given for not implementing this or that social program, or not having a more progressive tax structure is that it would “stifle innovation.” Here’s my question: Is innovation actually a supreme good? I will admit that in moving us out of the medieval times through industrialism and into modernity, it has been a force for positive change. But I think there’s also an element that the naturalists of the early twentieth century were hitting on that strikes of truth -- At what point does innovation become the end in and of itself? Are we just cogs in a giant machine of innovation that requires more innovation to occur so that innovation can continue happening and it’s just all we’re doing. It consumes us completely. Perhaps a balance can be achieved where humans get enough time to self-actualize and be human people in addition to their contributions? What do you think?
Stephen: Yes, it is possible but I suspect innovation would then have to be guided by a kind of ethic. Currently innovation seems to be driven as you noted before, for profit or as an end to itself. So we end up with no sustainable and non nourishing technologies. It reminds me of some of the direction that modern art has gone.
Zack: Welcome, Stephen! That’s an interesting observation. I hadn’t made that connection to the art world before, but can see what you mean. One of my big spiel’s that’s only tangentially related here is the disconnect between “value” and money. A big assumption of our culture is that money flows towards things/people/services that are inherently valuable. I think it flows towards things/people/services that we think are valuable, and those two can be quite different. But that’s a digression. About innovation. How much technology do we need? How much is good for us? If we stopped developing technology right now, would we be “happy?” Would that stifle our “growth” as a species?
Stephen: I think the question of value is a significant one. What is the ‘value’ that our innovation is directed towards? Is is simply for profit as though more is better? Or is it maybe influenced by the old Divine Right of Kings idea where humans are on top and the rest of nature is below us?
Zack: Yes, I think the ‘more is better’ ideology has driven us for a long time and still drives us. And certainly we haven’t completely shaken off the ‘divine right’ idea completely yet. I think the events in Iraq around the beginning of the century, and the way that the oil companies moved in in the wake of that is proof enough. But what of the present? If we stopped now, would it be “enough” for us? Or is it like individual human developmental progress, and unending journey in search of perfection, where the point is not to reach that state, but just to have the journey?
Beck: How do you ever get rid of the influence of power and money? The reason we have such interference in matching tech to nature is because of the nature of man. Some will always try to have MORE. Politics and Big Business are a natural tendency, because we are not all satisfied with ENOUGH.
Stephen: Good point. Hmm. Does it require a crisis to redirect our intentions and energies to a more sustainable and nurturing confluence?
Zack: Thinking about what I know about human history, I think the answer is “yes.” It even works that way with individual human development. Think of how many people have to hit “rock bottom” in order to realize that their behavior is unhealthy for them and that they need to change? When I look at the effects that burning fossil fuels has on our atmosphere, I have to wonder if “rock bottom” is really something we can recover from in that instance.
Beck: the big problem, to me, is the lack of individual commitment to action.
Stephen: How do we remedy that?
Zack: I think it’s organizational. We’ve constantly reorganized ourselves throughout history when the structures of our social organization proved toxic for individuals or society at large. We need another big reorg, basically. :)
Beck: For instance, water heaters. We have the ability to install solar adapters to water heaters for under $200, but how many are doing so? Right. You can order one, installed from Lowe's Hardware. So, when folks complain about the gov not investing in solar, why do we not just do it ourselves.?
Zack: I’m thinking bigger when I complain about that stuff. For example, Germany’s got something like 80% solar panel coverage on homes and organization buildings. They had a massive government program. They want to get off coal, which they’re still heavily dependent on. And Germany’s got a massive portion of the population that is highly suspicious of nuclear energy. I happen to share that concern and believe it’s well founded. As for the individual solar heater, I rent, so it’s not an option for me, but if it truly is less than $200, I would totally invest in one if I owned a house. I think another part of the problem is perception. In the US especially, I see “fads” as being problematic. We want “trendy” solutions to things, not practical ones. Concrete example: Seattle invested heavily in public bus infrastructure when they got the money from the Obama admin’s first year for public works. They built this whole “RapidRide” system, took out old lines, added new ones, bought new buses, redesigned them, tore out old bus stops, added new ones. The new buses have free wifi. This struck me as kind of ridiculous. We need more buses more often on existing lines. We need higher gas prices so people will use the existing buses more. We don’t need *expletive* wifi. </rant> Thoughts?
Stephen: I suspect we need a wide spread initiative that is personal, local, and global. I too rent so I can’t implement solar but I can carefully adjust my energy consumption. My landlords don’t trust the new technologies and recently replaced a water heater with the same type as before but more efficient. I suspect people want technologies to prove themselves before buying in. My parents for example live in a retirement community in Arizona. A few people there have installed solar panels but many are waiting to see how the personal payoff works out and are waiting for the cost to come down, as well as a kind of cultural perception to change their minds for them.
Zack: Hmm. Yes. I especially agree with that last part. It seems just human nature, but we on many subjects that our not our “specialty” we seem to rely on the collective consciousness to drive our decisions for us. I’m a web developer, so knowing the technologies really well, I freak out when I see people running Internet Explorer. But then I remind myself that this technology I’m fascinated with is just a black box to them. They’re driven but societal concensus, not a deep knowledge of the technical capabilities of varying options.
Beck: Folks who clamor for institutional change are happy to plunk down hundreds on a new, and hugely overpriced phone, cable hook-up, etc. where were they when solar panels were a bit too expensive?
Zack: I agree, Becky. I think that goes back to the trendiness thing I mentioned earlier. If the technology can make you feel good, people are more likely to part with money for it.
Zack: Stephen, did you have interest in going back to the first topic at all, about whether technology/nature was a dichotomy?
Beck: So, it basically comes down to a dependency issue. We can't be bothered to do research, to weigh the ethical values against the monetary and 'gee-whiz' factors. We'll wait until driven to do it by, as you say, we hit rock bottom.
Stephen: Hopefully countries like Germany will lead by example, providing an inspirational vision to those that lack the vision or are hampered by a perception/belief in scarcity. I suspect that a vision of scarcity is part of what drives this lack of sustainable innovation forward.
Zack: Can our imaginations overcome our biologically built in tendency to only correct when the danger to ourselves had reached an extreme? Seems like an interesting question for a sci-fi novel. :) I’ve got to go in just under twenty minutes so I’m going to move us along to our last topic for the discussion…
Technology as an Extension of Biology
So, if you haven’t already, at least check out the premise of the book “What Technology Wants” by Kevin Kelly. (link incoming) http://www.amazon.com/What-Technology-Wants-Kevin-Kelly/dp/B004Y6MT6O. He makes an argument that technology is just an extension of a specific part of the human biological organism -- our minds. It’s basically our ingenuity and innovation made manifest onto the material world. It grows and evolves as our minds change and adapt to our environment. Under this definitely, technology essentially becomes biology, or at least a part of it. This model got me thinking. Really, in the specific example of the oil/energy/biome crisis I worry about, that is just an example of a particular technology becoming something akin to a cancer. If that kind of scenario does come to pass, then what will have happened, under Kelly’s model, is that a single technology grew and grew and grew, subsuming all other thought or consideration of any of its competitors until it literally burned itself out, taking the whole system down with it. Any thoughts about that particular analysis or Kelly’s model as a whole?
Beck: We’d have to look at the entire electrical grid as the disease, then. It is power generation, on the large scale, that is the problem. We could do much to lessen our place on the titty, if we took individual action. But, there are very good, if as yet not viable, ideas around for more local control. The one that comes to mind right away is the wireless cluster - I may have the wrong term for that, but it is like having mini cell towers.
What if we, as neighbors, took the initiative to set up our own small power grids?
Zack: Yes, I think the solutions of the future will decentralize power generation. I hope we find better ways of transporting and storing energy too.
Beck: Transporting is coming along nicely. There is a new biological tech coming, using protein strings.
Batteries still a problem, but that is also coming along - ceramics and, I forget the name, some liquid metal?
Stephen: I’m not sure how to tie this together but I do agree that technology has a direction and I dare say a kind of purpose or teleology though maybe not well defined. I for one don’t see technology as being innately opposed to nature or human innovation as a disease. We each draw the line differently as to what is technology and what is not, what is natural and what is not. Humans and culture are a part of the natural systems of the Earth and our technology from fire, weaving, farming and our energy grid, as inefficient as it is are all extensions of the evolutionary exploration of Nature and our own nature. We blunder forward for lack of vision and fear and cling to inefficient systems and technologies when we can do better.
Zack: I agree. New technologies on the horizon are fascinating. Great fodder for our imaginations, and hopefully we will apply them wisely. After reading “What Technology Wants,” I too came of the opinion that technology is not opposed to nature but part of it. I think that, like certain elements of a biology, it can be a disease, or it can be healthy. That expression will depend on us. I think.
Stephen: There is an idyllic poem I came across that I’ll share here if I can get the formatting right: http://allpoetry.com/poem/8508991-All_Watched_Over_By_Machines_Of_Loving_Grace-by-Richard_Brautigan
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
by Richard Brautigan
Zack: I think that’s an excellent vision to strive for. And a great way to sign off this discussion. Do either of you have any final thoughts before I take off?
Stephen: No more than already said.Live long and prosper.
Beck: I could go much further, but next time, my bookmarks won’t disappear. I had some great conversation spurs, but have no idea where they went. Biology is not necessarily destiny. Later, friends!
