Editor’s Note: Unquestioned beliefs are the real authorities of any culture, and one of the central authorities in the dominant, globalizing culture is that technological progress is an unmitigated good. We call this “the lie of the techno-fix.”
The lie of the techno-fix is extremely convincing, with good reason. The propaganda promoting this idea is incessant and nearly subliminal, with billions of dollars pouring out of non-profit offices, New York PR firms, and Hollywood production companies annually to inculcate young people into the cult of technology. In policy, technology is rarely (if ever) subjected to any democratic controls; if it can be profitably made, it will be. And damn the consequences. There is money to be made.
Critics of technology and the techno-elite, such as Lewis Mumford, Rachel Carson, Langdon Winner, Derrick Jensen, and many others, have spoken out for decades on these issues. Technological “development,” they warn us, is perhaps better understood as technological “escalation,” since modern industrial technologies typically represent a war on the planet and the poor.
In this article, Helena Norberg-Hodge asks us to consider what values are important to us: progress, or well-being? Breakneck speed, or balance? She articulates a vision of technology as subordinate to ecology and non-human and human communities alike based on her experiences in the remote Himalayan region of Ladakh.
The most recent topic explored by the thinkers and activists who make up the Great Transition Network was “Technology and the Future”. As writer after writer posted their thoughts, it was heartening to see that almost all recognize that technology cannot provide real solutions to the many crises we face. I was also happy that Professor William Robinson, author of a number of books on the global economy, highlighted the clear connection between computer technologies and the further entrenchment of globalization today.
As anyone who has followed my work will know, globalization is of particular interest to me: for more than 40 years I’ve been studying its impacts on different cultures and societies around the world. From Ladakh and Bhutan to Sweden and Australia, a clear pattern has emerged: as people are pushed into deepening dependence on large-scale, technological systems, ecological and social crises escalate.
I’m not the only one to have seen this. In the International Forum on Globalization – a network I co-founded in 1992 – I worked with forty writers, journalists, academics and social and environmental leaders from around the world to inform the public about the ways in which “free-trade” treaties, the principal drivers of globalization, have eroded democracy, destroyed livelihoods, and accelerated resource extraction. In countries as disparate as Sweden and India, I have seen how globalization intensifies competition for jobs and resources, leading to dramatic social breakdown – including not only ethnic and religious conflict, but also depression, alcoholism and suicide.
Professor Robinson wrote that we are “at the brink of another round of restructuring and transformation based on a much more advanced digitalization of entire global economy”. This is true, but the link between globalization and technological expansion began well before the computer era. Large-scale, technological apparatuses can be understood as the arms and legs of centralized profit-making. And while 5G networks, satellites, mass data-harvesting, artificial intelligence and virtual reality will allow the colonization of still more physical, economic and mental space by multinational corporations, technologies like fossil fuels, global trading infrastructures, and television have already helped to impose a corporate-run consumer-based economy in almost every corner of the globe.
For reasons that are increasingly evident, an acceleration of this process is the last thing we need in a time of serious social and environmental crises. What’s more, the technologies themselves – from the sensors to the satellites – all rely heavily on scarce resources, not least rare earth minerals. Some of the world’s richest corporations are now racing each other to extract these minerals from the deepest seabeds and from the surface of Mars. It has been estimated that the internet alone – with its largely invisible data warehouses (much of it manned by exploited labor in the “developing” world) – will use up a fifth of global electricity consumption by 2025.
And for what? So that we can all spend more time immersed in and addicted to virtual worlds? So that we can automate agriculture, and drive more communities off the land into swelling urban slums? So that drones can deliver our online purchases without an iota of face-to-face contact?
When thinking about technology from within an already high-tech, urban context, we can easily forget that nearly half the global population still lives in villages, still connected to the land. This is not to say that their way of life is not under threat – far from it. Ladakh, the Himalayan region where I lived and worked for several decades, was unconnected to the outside world by even a road until the 1960s. But today you can find processed corporate food, smartphones, mountains of plastic waste, traffic jams and other signs of ‘modernity’ in the capital, Leh. The first steps on this path were taken in the mid-1970s when, in the name of ‘development’, massive resources went into building up the energy, communications and transport infrastructures needed to tie Ladakh to the global economy. Another step involved pulling Ladakhi children out of their villages into western-style schools, where they learned none of the place-based skills that supported Ladakh’s culture for centuries, and instead were trained into the technological-modernist paradigm. Together, these forces are pushing the traditional way of life to the brink of extinction.
While that process began relatively recently in Ladakh, in the west it has been going on far longer, with deeper impacts. But even here, more and more people are becoming aware that the technologization of their personal lives has led to increasing stress, isolation, and mental health struggles. During the pandemic people have been forced to do more online than ever before – from classes to conversations with friends and family – and most have discovered how limited and empty online life can be. There is a clear cultural turning, visible now even in the mainstream, that goes beyond a desire to spend less time on screens. People are also beginning to reject the posturing of the consumer culture and its work-and-spend treadmill, wanting instead to slow down, to cultivate deeper relationships and to engage in more community-oriented and nature-based activities.
I see young people all over the world choosing to leave their screen-based jobs to become farmers. (This return to the land is happening in Ladakh, as well, which I find truly inspiring.) Informal networks of mutual aid are arising. Friends are gardening, cooking and baking bread together; families are choosing to live on the land and developing relationships with the animals and plants around them. We are seeing increased respect for indigenous wisdom, for women and for the feminine, and a growing appreciation for wild nature and for all things vernacular, handmade, artisanal and local. There is also an emergence of alternative, ecological practices in every discipline: from natural medicine to natural building, from eco-psychology to ecological agriculture. Although these disciplines have often been the target of corporate co-optation and greenwashing, they have invariably emerged from bottom-up efforts to restore a healthier relationship with the Earth.
All of these are positive, meaningful trends that have been largely ignored by the media, and given no support by policymakers. At the moment, they are running uphill in a system that favors corporate-led technological development at every turn. They testify to enduring goodwill, to a deep human desire for connection.
When viewed from a big-picture perspective, the expansion of digital technologies – which are inherently centralized and centralizing – runs contrary to the emergence of a more humane, sustainable and genuinely connected future. Why should we accept an energy-and mineral-intensive technological infrastructure that is fundamentally about speeding life up, increasing our screen-time, automating our jobs, and tightening the grip of the 1%?
For a better future, we need to put technology back in its place, and favor democratically determined, diverse forms of development that are shaped by human and ecological priorities – not by the gimmicky fetishes of a handful of billionaires.
Helena Norberg-Hodge is founder and director of Local Futures. A pioneer of the “new economy” movement, she has been promoting an economics of personal, social and ecological well-being for over 40 years. She is the producer and co-director of the award-winning documentary The Economics of Happiness, and is the author of Local is Our Future and Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. She was honored with the Right Livelihood Award for her groundbreaking work in Ladakh, and received the 2012 Goi Peace Prize for contributing to “the revitalization of cultural and biological diversity, and the strengthening of local communities and economies worldwide.”
This article first appeared in Local Futures.
Banner image: road sign in Ladakh, via Unsplash.
Helena Norberg-Hodge’s essay beautifully articulates the thought that has driven most of my thinking during this century — that the motto of industrial civilization should be, “Get the hell out of my way! Our bulldozer is coming through!”
For the last 30 years, I have lived on a 50-year-old sailboat, in a relatively laid back marina, which was originally built to service the primary industries of the late19th century — mostly the logging industry, which transformed the Santa Cruz Mountains from native villages and pristine forests, into farms and ranches, and from there to Stanford University, and on to the trillion-dollar world of Silicon Valley, computer empires, and the extra-terrestrial fantasies of Elon Musk, Larry Page, & Associates.
Today that quiet marina is literally being bulldozed into condo, retail, and office space, where the ambitious crowds of suburbia would plan their brief, corporate future — until sea level rise inundates their 21st century world, and boats of some other kind become the only way to traverse it.
As my cousin (also in his mid-seventies) recently said, “I plan to be quite dead” by the 2050’s, when much of Highway 101, Interstate 880, and all three of the Bay Area’s major airports will be underwater. And, like Ms. Norberg-Hodge, I wonder where those 21st-century technocrats will find the resources they’ll need, as they presume to develop and profitize whatever remains above the waterline.
As I have often said, our self-styled corporate “leaders” appear to be racing to use up the planet as quickly as possible. And the technologies that Musk, Page, and their fellow-dreamers think will bail them out won’t be anywhere near functional, by the time they’ll be required to save us.
Electrical engineers say that by 2040, computers alone will require more electricity than all known technologies combined could produce. Meanwhile, we’re running out of the industrial-grade sand needed to make the concrete industry consumes — now at the rate of something over 12 billion tons a year.
And even if we weren’t on pace to have a steel shortage by the late 2030’s, we have no realistic hope of reaching the moons, planets, and asteroids, where the tech sector hopes to find the raw materials of the future, before the shortages of the present shut us down, here on Earth.
If nothing else, we have no clue how those space travelers would survive the years of weightlessness. Muscles atrophy quickly in space, and their hearts would stop beating, when subjected to the gravitational forces of whatever celestial bodies they hope to be mining. And robots alone cannot build, maintain, and manage their own workforce.
That’s technology’s conundrum, in a nutshell. By relying on the impossibility of perpetual growth, industrial humanity has painted itself into a corner. And the little corner of the cosmos we inhabit is running out of the materials necessary to fuel our greed.
In a nutshell, all technology is unnaturally harmful, because it all kills other species, pollutes the natural environment, and/or destroys habitats and even ecosystems. Ecologically and environmentally, that’s all that really needs to be said about technology. The only real issue here is the definition of “technology.” Is making fire technology? Is making a spear, net, or bow & arrow? My definition is that rudimentary things like this are not technology, but are instead natural use of our intelligence. Other animals make & use rudimentary tools also. But anything that requires mining or anything more advanced is certainly technology and is harmful to the natural world from cradle to grave.
The Returning Ecology section of this essay is unrealistically optimistic and not based on reality. Almost everyone in modern society has a smart phone, and many if not most of the rest of the people in the world have one too. People are so addicted to their phones that they will respond to messages on them even when they’re interacting with others in person, such as eating or drinking. Modern humans have had their attention spans reduced so much by staring at screens all day & night that they can’t even focus on or hold an idea for more than a second or two. Modern humans are so disconnected from the natural world because their world is so devoid of it that they are totally clueless about the natural world, as I’m always reminded when I assume that people know basic things about life like how ecological systems function, only to realize that I’ve assumed incorrectly. I agree with the essay in general, but we should not pull the wool over our own eyes as Church of the Subgenious sarcastically advocates. It’s important to acknowledge reality, regardless of how unpleasant it may be. Never give up hope, but don’t fail to recognize just how bad things are either.