notes on sustainability, privacy and alternatives to mainstream social media
home/about this project/about me/blog/now/site updates/blogroll
One of the things that I noticed when studying environmental issues is the popularity of techno-optimist approaches. Tecno-optimism is the idea that, since technology accelerated human progress in the past, technological advancement facilitated by the free market is key to continued and future prosperity and well-being for humanity.
Simply put, new tech solutions helped us in the past, so we should do everything to let technology progress because it will bring us prosperity and will solve our most pressing problems.
This stance (which echoes Italian futurism so popular during fascism) has been embraced by capitalists, neoliberalists and, unfortunately, also by a fringe of sustainability academics and professionals. The acceptance of the newest and shiniest form of technology as the only way for humanity to thrive is something we should be wary of.
After all, historically, many technological advancements have come with new sets of problems. Think nuclear waste and weapons, air pollution, climate change, microplastics, but also the health consequences of a comfortable and affluent lifestyle or the influence of social media on political polarisation.
The tendency to fully embrace the latest technology as something inevitable and inherently good for humanity puzzles me (AI is the latest example). Are we sure that the benefits always outweigh the drawbacks? Maybe, sometimes, pausing to consider whether to adopt the latest technology or keep using older yet trusted solutions can be more advantageous. Of course, different people and circumstances will require different solutions.
But how do we define "low-tech"? I recently read an interview with the founder of Low Tech Magazine, Kris De Decker, and I am inclined to agree with his take. He says that low-tech can only be defined in relation to something else. For example, a basic mobile phone (I don't think "dumbphone" is the best term for these devices) will be low-tech compared to a smartphone, yet the same device would have been considered high-tech compared to landline phones.
I spent more than half of my life using non-smart technology, so for me, embracing low(ish) tech solutions has meant going back to something I've done before. Six years ago, I decided to restart using a non-smart mobile phone, and I immediately realised that this still was the right type of technology for me.
My candybar phone is cheap, small, lightweight, and doesn't contain sensitive data like bank details or private photos or conversations. It collects only a few personal data (e.g., geolocation), has no internet access, has a long battery life and does what it is supposed to do: make/receive calls and send/receive text messages.
But the best feature of all is that it lets me forget about it! If I am at home, it just stays in another room and, when I'm outside, it just sits in my pocket without trying to capture my attention. I decide when to use it, not the other way round. Moreover, it has revived my pre-smartphone navigation skills, which is an added bonus!
I spend a lot of time in front of my computer, working and studying remotely, so I am happy to be offline when I'm outside. This is a boundary I had when I was a phone-less teenager that I was happy to re-establish later in life.
Other examples of low-tech solutions that I regularly use include paper books, pocket refillable (and often DIY) notebooks, refillable pens, and physical records. I do have a vacuum cleaner, but find myself using my trusted broom and dustpan more. Generally, I prefer home equipment that does not require charging in between uses.
Older technology has some limitations compared to smart devices, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing! For example, one objection that people make when comparing paper books and ebooks is that you can only carry one (or two) book, while an ebook reader will let you carry thousands of books and take up minimal space.
This objection is obviously true; one ebook reader will take little space and may be the perfect solution for those with limited space (been there for most of my life) or who need to travel often. However, I find that the urge to carry everything with us at all times is a byproduct of our times.
In fact, thanks to smartphones and co., we seem to have become too attached to the idea of accessing everything at any moment. This is a habit that I was starting to develop and that I didn't like. Today, I am perfectly fine with NOT having everything at my fingertips and "only" carrying one book or a limited selection of mp3 music when I'm outside. Despite being inseparable from my Walkman for most of my life and having a restless mind, entertaining myself with external sources like books and music during commutes or while waiting in line has become an option, not a necessity. I credit not carrying online devices for that!