Technology will save us. Won’t it?

The Economist is running an interesting debate about the energy crisis (by which they mean climate change, not energy security or peak oil), for those arguing for and against the proposition that:

We can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations.

My first reaction was that this was a bit of an empty discussion, like arguing about which is more important – eating or breathing? Obviously we need both, and relying solely on one or the other is a recipe for failure. Why must we think one-dimensionally? Reality is rarely so simple.

The other limiting aspect of this debate is the embedded and unspoken assumption of purely technological solutions and innovations. This is a dangerous fantasy. The reality is that social and cultural factors must be part of any coherent solution to the energy crisis. Our attitudes to the way we consume energy, transport ourselves, organise our economies and arrange our cities are just as important as the technologies we use.

Fred Steward, one of my favorite academics, points out in this paper that we need a much broader concept of innovation than pure technological advancement. The challenges of environmental sustainability are vast and complex are we cannot make the complacent assumption that some entrepreneurial inventor or well-funded research lab will deliver us a quick fix. Steward argues for a more integrated approach:

Policy and research attention has traditionally been limited to profit-oriented science-based innovation with a consequent emphasis on generic technologies such as machine tools or microelectronics pushing change upon society. Sustainability policy has been divided into two camps: one promising a breakthrough technical solution that will allow us to continue to live as ever before; and another that suggests we all change our behaviour, boiling only half a kettle and cutting down on flights.

However a new model of ‘sociotechnical’ transition has emerged, giving greater weight to the interaction between many actors in achieving such large-scale changes. In this, technical developments and social change combine to displace the incumbent companies, principles and priorities with a new arrangement.

This kind of nuance is conspicuously absent from most debates about innovation and the future of energy.


3 Responses to “Technology will save us. Won’t it?”

  1. Technology will save us. Won’t it? (2) « Everything is changing Says:

    […] will save us. Won’t it? (2) Following on from my previous post about simplistic technological fixes, at LP found a similar limitation in the debate about an […]

  2. twilight83 Says:

    I completely agree with your observation that the above argument is blindly technologically-dependent. It would seem to me that our “technology” is calling for a behavioral change, not the invention of yet another new device. This reminds me of something very interesting I learned in high school. I was given an assignment to ask random people outside of the school which technology they thought was the most important. A very open-ended & very bogus assignment. Most people I asked picked typical stuff, they liked circuit boards because they yielded computers, or they liked propulsion because it gave them planes and cars, or whatever they felt the correlation was. One person said they thought the most important technology was hygiene. I thought it was a really lame answer, so I asked them to explain. This person went on to say how one day science discovered that little creepy crawlies were responsible for infections and sickness, and that all you really had to do was wash your hands and wash your medical equipment to stay safe. The result they said, was a dramatic decrease in mortality rates. Okay, maybe their answer wasn’t so lame after-all.

    I feel like its the same thing going on now – we have advanced sufficiently so that we know what the problem is, but some people thats not good enough. They want one more technology, they want something to wash our hands for us.

  3. Brett Robertson Says:

    Thanks for your comment. Good point – a broader definition of “technology” would be very useful when it comes to solving these issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: