“We need to find a way to leave some technologies on the shelf”
Mike Berners-Lee, TAI sustainability summit, 5 November 2019
This document has been written as a response to the above quote. Because the underlying concept is so important – all technologies offer private benefit but not necessarily a public benefit – this is published as a draft document and comments and contributions are welcomed.
The choice of style is deliberate – an attempt to be entertaining as well as informative. This reflects our belief that we learn best when having fun. It is therefore as much an experiment in form as it is in substance.
For context, the thinking below is also built on the John Sterman quote – “there are no side effects, just effects”. From this we derive the principle that all processes (and therefore technologies) both create value and destroy value (throw off waste)[1].
The author is Tim Hodgson, who is solely responsible for errors. Credit for significantly improving the original argument goes to Liang Yin.
Version 1 | 6 February 2020
The infinite library of technologies
As a thought experiment, imagine that we discover a hole in the space-time continuum large enough for all humans to settle comfortably for a while. After removing all the humans we let time tick forward on planet earth, and we watch.
The earth without humans
Nothing much appears to happen at first, but that is more a function of our impatience as observers. As we settle, we observe many things. The built environment becomes greener as tarmac and concrete rupture under the pressure of plant life pushing through. The mix of animal life changes drastically. Predators enjoy a brief bonanza – cows trapped in fields – but then the easy pickings run out and their population crashes too. Avocados and oranges fall to the ground unharvested and don’t get to travel the world.
As time rolls yet further on we see coastlines change and parts of cities move under water. The built environment takes a battering from storms and the constant change from hot to cold and back, and wet to dry and back. We begin to realise that if we watched the movie long enough nature would, eventually, level everything we had built[2].
There is an interesting question that we are not qualified to comment on. What is happening to the global average temperature? We do not know whether nature would be able to reabsorb the carbon in the atmosphere and return the planet to the climate niche in which humans thrived; or whether nature would take the gift of anthropomorphic carbon and move to a new climate niche altogether. To express this in a different way, are we already past sufficient climate tipping points[3] that nature would need the assistance of (large-scale) technology to maintain a human-friendly climate niche?
The library
That last question leads us back to the hole in the space-time continuum where humanity waits. While some of us have been observing Earth, others went exploring and discovered the entrance to the infinite library of technologies[4]. They report back that all possible technologies are contained in the library, all precisely detailed so that the necessary components could be built[5][6]. For carbon capture alone there appear to be thousands of rooms, each containing the descriptions of thousands of technologies.
The planning meeting
Sensing that the time to return to Earth was approaching, the elders called a meeting. The sole topic for discussion was which technologies to choose from the library to take back. One earnest contribution was “none of them”. When asked to explain why, the contributor noted that Earth had now settled into a new state. Even humans going back, let alone taking technology with them, would disrupt things. Animals would diminish as humans harvested the avocados and oranges (and the animals). It would not be possible to predict the impact on the ecosystem, so how would we know which technologies would be best?
The contributor went on to describe how they viewed the planet’s carrying capacity:
- The Earth will receive a free of gift of daily sunlight[7] for about 5 billion more years. That defines the upper limit for sustainable energy use[8]
- That sunlight should be shared with plants, as plants are quite useful as a source of food and medicines (ie we should not carpet the Earth with photovoltaic cells)
- Given their share of sunlight, the plants would gift humanity with an annual dividend (avocados, oranges, and cubic metres of wood)
- The food should be shared with animals, as animals are quite useful
- Given their share of food, the animals would gift humanity with an annual dividend (fibres for clothing, companionship, and food that stays fresh until needed)
- The carrying capacity of the planet for humans is therefore determined by the sunlight not spent on plants, plus the dividends from plants and animals.
There was uproar in the meeting which took the elders a while to settle. It turned out that the vast majority were not keen on wooden kettles or microwaves. This led to a vexed conversation over how to define carrying capacity for metals and minerals. One bright spark suggested that the rate of replenishment could be proxied by the annual rate at which lava brought new minerals to the surface, so maybe the rate of extraction should be no higher than that?
Sustainability and intergenerational fairness
This comment triggered an important digression. While most agreed that this statement was a reasonable definition of sustainability – the rate of extraction being no higher than the rate of replenishment – it would be very restrictive. Rather, the meeting should endorse the concept of intergenerational fairness. This would allow the current generation to extract resources at an unsustainably-high rate, but use them to build a stock of assets that would benefit future generations. The response to questions about potential abuse of the implicit trust in the arrangement was ‘self-regulation’. Which didn’t feel quite right, but no better solution was forthcoming[9].
The circular economy
To try to get the meeting back on track (the selection of technologies) one group suggested unifying around a principle. Instead of reinstating the linear economic system (take-make-use-throw) humanity should operate a circular economic system (reuse-repair-repurpose). This was seen as addressing the metals and minerals question raised earlier. Once a quantity of them was ‘at play’ in the economy, then the expectation should be that they would continually circle around the economy and not head to land fill. In other words, recovery or future use should be designed in to the first-use product.
This quickly led to a second principle – waste minimisation[10]. This was subtly, but importantly, different to efficiency maximisation which focuses on the amount of desired output per unit of input, rather than the amount of undesirable output produced as a consequence. Together, these principles would materially influence which technologies to choose.
Powering the circular economy
The discussion morphed naturally into how to power this circular economy. Many were surprised that there wasn’t immediate and unanimous agreement to the principle that all energy should be zero-carbon (when operating). A group calling themselves pragmatists pointed out that the temptation to use the calorie-dense fossil fuels that were just sitting there would be too great. Therefore, given the need for some form of always-on (base load) power, we should burn fossil fuels – but only up to the rate that the earth could naturally capture the CO2 thrown off. At this point the meeting exploded into a cacophony of voices. Various arguments had ignited, including:
- Proponents of nuclear fission for base load power versus those totally against the danger it posed[11]
- Proponents of battery storage to cover the periods when renewal sources were not supplying energy
- Those questioning why ‘always-on’ was even necessary, and
- Those suggesting a mass trawl through the infinite library of technologies for nuclear fusion, or equivalent magic-energy bullet (versus those who insisted there would be some unintended negative consequence).
Precisely no-one argued against the need for energy[12].
Social and ethical implications
Again, it took a while for the elders to restore order. They had noticed that one group had remained silent throughout the meeting. The eldest addressed them and asked if they had nothing to say on the choice of technologies. Their spokesperson replied that they didn’t start with technology; they started with their values. They were happy to adopt any technology that supported or enhanced their values, but they rejected any that weakened their values. This assessment was only possible by trialling the technology and observing the impact[13]. So they apologised, they couldn’t assist in the choice of technologies to take back. But, if it helped, they could contribute another principle: any technology has social and ethical implications.
Progress, but no answer
The meeting ran long. And it failed in its singular purpose to determine which technologies to choose. It had, however, settled on some important principles that would guide the eventual choices.
- Technologies that allowed resources to be extracted at a faster rate than the rate of replenishment should be used with caution, and under strict reporting and monitoring conditions
- Technologies would be assessed for efficiency
- Technologies would be assessed for waste minimisation
- Technologies would be assessed for social and ethical impact.
Perhaps as a tongue-in-cheek comment, it was suggested that a committee be set up to review each technology against these criteria. As we were currently outside the space-time continuum we had more than enough time to review the infinite number of technologies within the library.
Leaving the thought experiment
Clearly we do not have the luxury of stepping outside time to carefully consider what technologies to use. Nor do we have the option of carrying on as we are. At some level, technology is to blame for our current predicament. If we had never built coal-fired power stations, or so enthusiastically embraced air travel…
Therefore, through this lens, our choice can be characterised as between de-technologising (sorry!), which is the route advocated by the degrowth movement, and re-technologising (again, sorry!). It is inconceivable to the author that the majority of humans would choose the abstinence path, and therefore the future will be about harnessing technology. This document seeks to make the case that we need to “do technology” differently – specifically suggesting waste minimisation and social (public good) criteria. It is deliberately silent on the “how” – how do we assess a nascent technology for social and ethical impact? How do we structure incentives so that there is both private benefit (so it is funded) and public benefit? If there is merit in the ideas in this paper then that work lies ahead of us.