This post was inspired by a recent comment in response to other posts. To paraphrase, “I’m not going to read this because other articles on this site are anti-tech.” The idea was that since some of my work question the availability of resources1 or the net effects2 of green technologies when taking embodied energy3 or carbon4 into account, nothing I say could be considered legitimate as it challenges “technological advances”.
In response, I say that I am not “anti-technology” but “pro-science”. Good science requires that we always be critical of ‘technology’.
There is a myth that is undoubtedly accepted in modern society: “Technology makes life better.” This is a proposal taken as a “rule” when in fact it is a “function”: a certain level of technology certainly improves a person’s lifestyle; but beyond a certain point, technology creates a “trap” 5 – where increasing complexity poses a greater risk to our well-being in the event of a sudden failure of these systems.
Those who follow my work know that the experience of being outdoors has a huge impact on my work; and that I really enjoy walking and, if possible, camping in extreme weather conditions: Thunderstorms; floods; and Winter frost. However, there is one type of weather that I don’t mess with: extreme heat.
As of this writing, the UK is on track to break historical temperature records. However, the media debate lacks the role that technological dependency, driven by the economic imperative of greater productivity and control, plays in highlighting the dangers of urban lifestyles in extreme heat.
Today, “technology” is not an evaluation of how to improve our lives. It is a variously exploiting business model6, a consumer fashion, a brand-led cult7 – and, bringing it all together, a religion of wealth8 and consumption.
Technology doesn’t have to be “bad”; but you need to understand the limitations of its use to make sure it really enriches your life. I look at technology from the perspective of physical sciences – especially engineering. And from this perspective, there are no “indisputable” goods: the technology needs to be tested for how it’s made, how it works, and how performance changes under probable but unusual conditions… such as extreme heat.
What we are talking about are the so-called “Black Swan” 9 or “low probability of high impact” events: events that are likely, much less under warming conditions; but they are so rare that when they appear, they push people – and especially the technology that enables them to live – beyond their everyday experiences.
If I spend time outdoors, exercising and developing my “primitive” skills10, it is not because I “reject” technology11. This is because I understand modern technology and its limitations. And I’m not developing these skills to reject society. The idea is to create a simpler, more stable, fallback option to help others12 when the “high technology” model fails13.
The response to climate change is too often accompanied by calls for more or for improved technology. I do not agree. I believe we need 14 “less complex” technologies.
In modern society, there are many systemic drawbacks15: Overlapping processes that, because of the way they underpin systemic complexity16, create a correlating risk of catastrophic failure when systems are disrupted. From supply chains to critical minerals, every single factor can trigger a global crisis – such as the current “cost of living crisis” 17 as a result of the conflict in Ukraine.
In this analysis, I will focus on the biggest one – which is also easier to talk about because people can easily see it in their daily lives: Electricity.
In the richest industrialized countries, power outages are rare. In poorer countries, they are a fact. In fact, the emerging effect18 of accessible and reliable consumer services – such as energy, water, temperature control, garbage collection and communication – is fundamental to the prosperous and high-consumption lifestyles19 enjoyed by rich countries.
As technological complexity increases, there is a backward trend: relying on capacities from high-availability networks creates a potential crisis as people do not know how to respond to a prolonged power loss. To see the complex interaction of electricity with the average urban community, the diagram above illustrates how energy permeates all aspects of our “modern” lifestyle:
Electricity and the “modern” lifestyle – figures refer to the sections below
Technology is making society less ‘safe’
Power failure is just one of many similar flaws that are rampant in modern society. The engineering weaknesses of Britain’s urban “life support system” are well known. Read also : Governor Lamont Announces Seven New Technical Education Programs at Connecticut Public and Private Colleges and Universities.. Various experts have commented on these problems for many years.
Is the use of science, engineering and statistics to model the risk of failure an “anti-technology”? Not! It is rational to assess the “risk” of gadgets in our lives. If people fear it, I suggest it is due to their own failure35 of their addictive dependence on these fragile systems.
“Don’t look at Kelly Kettle lest Kelly Kettle look back at you!”
Practice the low-tech alternatives!
The solution is “simpler technology” 36; skills, not gadgets. That’s why I like to forage, camp and cook food outdoors. These skills can sustain us “when technology fails.” Such “primitive skills” are valuable not only because they make us resilient; but because they can be easily and freely shared, person-to-person, in response to any emergency.
