Technological myopia

Abstract

Purpose

This paper provides an argument to consider in more detail the development and application of technology in the context of sustainability. It argues the need to go beyond economic benefit and that timescale is significant.

Design/methodology/approach

This argument is based upon Socratic argument and focuses upon the historiography of technology with particular references to agricultural developments. It then proceeds to apply the same arguments to artificial intelligence (AI) and to climate change.

Findings

The findings are encompassed in the argument and show the need to be more open and careful when considering the development, and especially, the implementation of technology to address problems.

Practical implications

This argument has significant implications for the adoption of technological developments.

Social implications

The social implications are equally profound and will impact upon the application of technological solutions to current problems.

Originality/value

Such a historiographical approach to this problem has not previously been applied to this.

Citation

Crowther, D. (2023), "Technological myopia", Technological Sustainability, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1108/TECHS-10-2022-0039

The myth of sustainable technological development

It is generally considered that progress is always forwards and in a roughly linear manner. So today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better still. This is a cosy assumption and has the consequences of an unthinking belief that we do not need to worry about tomorrow because there will be improvements (Seifi, 2021). This is despite the fact that history constantly shows us that this is not true and that events happen which set the world back. There are many instances of this but wars provide a good example. The current concern with climate change is another example where humanity has arrived at the current situation in that there is a problem which has been largely caused by previous actions and certainly by previous lack of concern by ourselves and our ancestors. Indeed, as Popper (1957) cogently argued, any analysis of the past can provide no basis for predicting the future. Yet we still continue to assume that this past provides us with a guide to the future: a fallacy discussed in this paper.

There is an equal expectation that people of the future will be able to take care of the problems which we are causing in the present – that developments will take place which will solve all the problems. Another way to express this, however, is that we are expecting that our children and our grandchildren will solve the problems which we are creating. Plainly this is an abrogation of responsibility which can never really be fully justified.

Equally, there is a continuing imperative to invent, based upon our curiosity as humans to discover what is not known. This is certainly true of developments in science and technology. A corollary of this is that there is a drive to find uses for things which have been invented in the belief that new inventions must have a use.

Alongside these expectations is the expectation that technological developments in the future will enable the problems of the present to be solved (Vollebergh and Kemfert, 2005). While this gives security to those espousing this view it is difficult to accept as sustainable. After all, we are clearing up the mess made by previous generations, and it is difficult to believe that future generation will find this approach acceptable. For example, it is unlikely that Easter Islanders were happy that their ancestors had used up all the trees which led to economic collapse and reduced the choices available to future generations. This can be extended into the present when there is an expectation that “Net Zero” will be achieved but that this will involve carbon capture and reduction through technology – technology which does not yet exist but is hoped to come along (Oreskes, 2022).

This argument about expectations from the future has also been considered by Goergen (2022) who argues that the supply of drinking water in the world is at risk of being insufficient but that desalination technology is inadequate and need to be improved to satisfy demand. Thus there seems to be an overreliance upon technology and more significantly that this technology will come into being as needs require it. This may be true or may just be lazy optimism to avoid other actions. Either way our grandchildren will need to deal with the legacy which we leave behind. But as Chief Seattle succinctly stated: “We don't inherit the Earth, we borrow it from our children.”[1]

We have used technology since the dawn of civilisation and continued to develop new technology – as the review in this paper shows. This is primarily because there are benefits in using technology and developing new technology. This benefit accrues in economic terms with little thought being given to the other pillars of sustainability: the social is only considered in terms of the immediate family or community rather than for humanity as a whole and the environmental is never really considered, being thought of primarily as a free resource available to be exploited. This paper is not, however, opposed to technology; rather it is argued that technology is needed but is not necessarily a solution to the problems we cause although it certainly can be. In considering the use and benefits of technology it is important that possible solutions are considered appropriately within a broader context than is normally the case.

The development of agricultural technology

It is intended to take an anthropologic view of development in order to detail the argument and it is possible to explore this through looking at the technology used in agriculture and its development. Probably the first technological invention was the hoe which was initially made from deer antler before eventually becoming made from iron. The age of this is unknown but Huber (2015) argues that it was at least 10,000 years ago. What is certain, however, is that by 2000bce they were being cast from bronze (Jibladze et al., 2001). Quite obviously this technological invention had a dramatic impact upon food production and it can be argued that this technology is what led to the predominance of farming over hunter gathering, as the output in terms of food was much greater and more certain.

This focus upon agriculture led to the development of the hand plough; using this was extremely hard work so the next major development was to use animals in harness to pull the plough (Sherrat, 1981). This obviously required less effort to plough a field (for the humans at least!) and production increased dramatically. Using animals also had the added advantage that they fertilised the fields while they were working. This development did not, however, really necessitate any technological development, although such developments came later. An example of such development is the invention of the seed drill by Jethro Tull in 1701.

Many technological inventions and improvements have taken place over the millennia in which we have engaged in agriculture as our prime way of securing food but of significance in the machine age was the ploughing machine – powered by steam – and subsequently the tractor. These enabled fewer people to work the farm and for more land to be fully ploughed and used for crop production. It is perhaps unsurprising that agricultural production increased dramatically and Pingali and Heisey (2001) have estimated this to be a sustained increase in productivity of 2% per annum. Of course tractors no longer fertilised the fields, as animals did and over time the soil became depleted and short of nutrients. This was caused by increased productivity and lack of time for the land to recover as crops were grown every year without the fallow periods of medieval times (Hauchhum and Tripathi, 2019). In addition the increase in extent and intensity of crop growing led to the reduction and almost elimination of wild plants. This in turn led to the reduction in insects, a reduction in their pollination and to the silent spring lamented by Carson (1962).

All of these unplanned for effects of intensive agriculture led to a decline in yields from these depleted fields. This in turn led to a number of other actions. One was the use of bees to provide pollination and an industry developed (Lowenstein et al., 2014) which transported beehives to where needed to ensure pollination before being relocated elsewhere. Another was the necessity of using fertilisers to replenish the soil; indeed increasingly powerful fertilisers have been created to satisfy the demand to maintain yields (Timilsena et al., 2014). Unfortunately an effect of the extensive use of fertilisers has been the pollution of rivers and waterways (Srinivasa, 2006) which in turn affects other processes. This consequently meant that rivers needed cleaning (Wen et al., 2017) and therefore the development of more technology in the form of river cleaning machines (Rafique and Langde, 2017). The consequent side effects of such technology are currently unknown.

What is apparent from this brief analysis is that technology is not necessarily the solution to all problems as other alternatives might exist. More significantly technology is used to solve a problem and the benefits from doing so are immediately apparent. Any problems which may occur from using this technology are probably not immediately apparent and may not become manifest for a significant period of time after the technology has been in use. Moreover these problems may appear in apparently disconnect arenas which were not considered at the time that the technology was produced and tested. This is a reminder of the homeostatic nature of the Earth as described by Lovelock (1979) as his Gaia Hypothesis in which all parts of the Earth and its inhabitants are connected into one single system. This is significant as we seek to use technology to solve our problems with the planet and illustrates one of the general problems exposed in this paper, namely that benefits are short term and considered in economic terms whereas all effects take longer to appear and cover all aspects of the triple pillars of Brundtland.

The unintended effects of technological development are not of course new (see for example Freeman, 2007; Reyns et al., 2013) and this will be returned to later. At this point, however, it is necessary to consider the Industrial Revolution and some consequences thereof.

The industrial revolution

The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 (Crafts, 1977) with the development of technology to enable large scale production. It has been argued, however, by de Vries (2009) that the real start was what he described as an industrious revolution which was market based and depended upon consumers wanting to acquire goods rather than making them and then swapping with neighbours; in other words a change from production to consumption. Whatever the cause the effect was a dramatic increase in economic wealth with consequently increased standards of living. This increase has continued at a similar rate ever since. Indeed Buckminster Fuller (1938) argued that technological change has taken place at a constant pace over the last 2 centuries and this has been confirmed by Kurzweil (1999) for the previous century. Others (e.g. Romer, 1990) have made similar arguments.

These technological changes and developments which have been taking place over the last couple of centuries have had a dramatic effect and it would be no exaggeration to state that they have transformed the lives of people all over the world. Indeed a phenomenal number of people have moved from subsistence level standards of living to having a reasonable secure source of accommodation and food. The change has been so dramatic that measures of poverty have changed and still the reduction is continuing (Kniivila, 2007). This change has been so dramatic and so continuous that it is now expected by most people to continue at the same rate. Moreover it has become the norm that technological developments are expected to occur to solve the problems which we are faced with at the present. Indeed this can be phrased as the cosy assumption that future generations will simply be able to solve the problems which we leave them because technology will arrive to enable these solutions to occur (Matsui, 1977). This expectation is taken further by Smerdon and Gaither (1974) who argue that technological development can be used to solve environmental problems. This is somewhat ironic in that many environmental problems have been caused by technological developments!

The focus of technological progress ever since the Industrial Revolution has been upon the economic activity of people and their improved standards of living in economic terms. The effects upon the societal aspects of people lives have not really been considered and it is by no means certain that people are generally happier as a result of economic developments. Certainly life has become easier in some respects with food security but the discipline of manufacturing industry is less welcome. Welfare in societal terms has in general not been considered by technological development (de Long, 1988). Equally the environmental impacts of these developments have largely been ignored as the environment has been treated as a free resource (Huber, 2016). Two of the consequences of this attitude have been the pollution caused and also the effects upon climate (Chapmen, 2007) and it is only recently that this link between technological developments and the subsequent consequences has been realised (Schjaer-Jacobsen, 1996).

This of course raises the same issues which have been alluded to above, namely that benefits occur immediately while problems may not be manifest for some time. Moreover any problems which may occur might well be in a completely different sphere with the connection not being immediately obvious. One consequence of this lack of clear relationship is that possible effects of technological developments which might occur elsewhere are not taken into account until after the introduction: then new technology is needed to solve these problems. This points to a flaw in the evaluation of developments, which we will return to. These issues become more significant when we consider AI, to which we will now turn.

Artificial intelligence as a panacea

Probably the biggest technological development of recent times has been the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) which is gradually permeating all aspects of life from domestically (Guzman, 2018) to industrial, transport etc. Indeed the rapid development of AI tools and technology has been so rapid and extensive that Lee (2020) argues that this is transforming our lives and discusses the consequences and implications. Rawassideh et al. (2019) go even further and discuss the introduction of robots into our daily lives. Arguably, at least in developed countries, AI has permeated society to such an extent that it is impossible to avoid all applications of its use.

It seems to be generally accepted that this widespread use of AI is of benefit and discussions surround how best to make sure that everyone benefits from this AI (Griffen et al., 2020; Zou and Schiebinger, 2021). More recently, however, concern has been expressed about its implementation and use. This has increased to such an extent that the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) and the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) have recently issued a report (ISO/IEC, 2022) addressing the concerns regarding ethical and societal concerns with the rapid and increasing use of AI; presumably international standards concerning the responsible adoption of AI technologies will follow, after appropriate consultation. It seems therefore that AI technology is following the trajectory of all other technological developments, namely that techniques are being developed and implemented on the basis of their benefits without full consideration of their possible detrimental effects in other arenas. It is no exaggeration to suggest that this focus seems to be entirely upon economic benefit alone.

In actual fact those responsible for the development of AI techniques, once given time to reflect, can themselves see that there could be potential problems with the developments that they introduce and implement. In a survey conducted by Michael et al. (2022) they concluded that the AI community is in danger of overestimating its own belief in the usefulness of benchmarks and perhaps more significantly of the potential for scaling up developments in order to solve actual problems. Indeed many respondents to the survey went further and were concerned that the prevalence of unregulated AI had the potential to cause global catastrophe. Furthermore, 73% of those questions admitted that AI could lead to revolutionary social change on a similar scale to the industrial revolution and certainly can be expected to create challenges in trying to integrate such developments into industrial and, more significantly, military operations.

This again illustrates that technological changes have been introduced to give economic benefits without all aspects of their effects, especially in the longer term, bring fully considered and evaluated. It seems therefore that technological developments, in the form of AI at least, have become so dramatic that their impact upon sustainability have become very significant – and not necessarily positively so. This will be considered in detail below but first the impact of technological development upon climate change needs to be considered.

Technology and climate change

There is little doubt that we are facing a crisis regarding climate change and there is equally little doubt that this is made by humanity through its use of technology; moreover this change is likely to be permanent (Khairullina et al., 2019) in contrast to natural fluctuations. Indeed the effects are expected to be profound and Cahill et al. (2013) consider these effects in terms of extinctions. This is expressed by Fair Supply (2022) who has reported that significant biodiversity has been lost and urgent action is required. Contrarily Ranson (2014) consider the impact upon crime caused by climate change, while Koutse and Rielveld (2009) are more prosaic in considering the impact upon transport suggesting that the number of road traffic accidents will increase as a result. There is certainly agreement that climate change will have an economic impact, as discussed by Kolstad and Moore (2020).

There is no doubt that climate change affects the number and severity of extreme weather events occurring (Stott, 2016) and this is having a deleterious effect upon human health (de Sario et al., 2013; Hashim and Hasshim, 2015). Again evidence of the effects of climate change in all arenas continues to mount. Nevertheless there is still an expectation that technology will solve our problems in this respect although some such as Rajan (2006) consider the relative merits of technological solution and social change as alternatives. Others (e.g. Grubb, 2004) consider the options available, but all seem reliant upon technological development.

It seems undoubted that climate change has been driven by human activity and caused by the technology which we use. Primary causes have been cited at the use of fossil fuels and by the use of motors, primarily for transport (Crowley, 2000; Stern and Kaufman, 2014). Nevertheless the human cause is by no means universally accepted and Leviston et al. (2013) use psychological theories to explain why this is so. It seems clear, however, that all the technological developments which have led to climate change have been initiated and driven by the economic benefits derived from their use and accepting that these also cause problems for nature and in terms of climate change imply that these economic improvements might be in some way threatened. Thus accepting this might lead to a reduction in economic welfare and in a world in which everyone is focused upon catching up with or surpassing their neighbours (see Adams, 1963 equity theory of motivation) then it is unsurprising that there is a reluctance to accept these possible consequences. This drive to compete with our neighbours goes back to the hunter gatherer days before any technology for agriculture has been invented as only the successful hunters managed to eat and therefore survive. Indeed the drive to invent technology to assist us stems from the same source so action would seem to require affecting some of our basic motivations.

Seeking sustainability

Sustainability is a concept which is on everyone's lips at the present although the number of definitions of what is meant continue to multiply (see for example Wilkinson et al., 2001; Virtaten et al., 2020). Despite the variations in definitions it is clear that all address in some way the 3 pillars of Brundtland (WCED, 1987), namely the economic, the environmental and the social. Although it was stressed by the Brundtland Report that these three pillars must be considered equal and addressed equally and everyone accepts this, on the surface at least, it is equally clear than in practice for each person one pillar predominates. The analysis above demonstrates that for technological development it is the economic pillar and the consequent improvements in economic welfare which dominates. It is also clear that the Brundtland definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” has been ignored by the assumptions that future generations will be able to create the technology to clear up the problems caused by our own technological development and uses.

It seems equally clear from the analysis above that decisions about the attractiveness and/or usefulness of technological developments are concerned with whether or not they solve a problem or address an issue of immediate concern and this concern is almost entirely concerned with economic benefit. In other words project evaluation is essentially based upon short term criteria. Sustainability, however, is based upon a much wider set of criteria and is entirely concerned with the future rather than the present. All pillars must be addressed, or at least considered and the impact must be assessed, or at least considered. This extends to impact in unrelated and possibly unforeseen arenas. Examples abound of unforeseen consequences in unrelated areas. Consider for example water management through the construction of dams and the effects upon social life (Egre and Senecal, 2012); upon the environment downstream from the dams (McAllister et al., 2001); or even upon climate change (Loza and Fidelis, 2021). Similarly consider plastics and their effect upon human health (Kumar et al., 2022) or upon ocean life (Sigler, 2014). This has been classed as an emergency and has raised issues about the governance of the oceans (Haward, 2018) as well as claims about it detracting from other more serious issues (Stafford and Jones, 2019).

It is clear therefore that when sustainability is considered there are many more issues which need to be taken into account in addition to whether the technology meets immediate needs or satisfies immediate problems. This raises the issue of project evaluation which must now be considered.

Evaluation for sustainability

It would appear from the above argument that there is a problem when we consider the development of technology, especially when we are concerned with sustainability. Obviously sustainability requires all aspects – economic, social and environmental to be considered – in any evaluation but in reality all that is considered is the economic in almost every instance. Additionally benefits are considered in the short term in order to provide justification – especially when satisfying a need or resolving a current problem. The above argument has shown that many of the problems may not manifest themselves for a considerable period of time and may apply in arenas which have not been considered as relevant to the analysis of the effects of the technology which has been developed.

This shows that there seems to be a problem with evaluation procedures in that the implications are neither considered widely enough nor over a long enough time scale. Partly this is the problem which has been referred to earlier that there is an assumption that if problems arise in the future then the people in that future will be able to develop technology which will solve the problem. Leaving aside the morality of this view point then it fails to recognise that the potential problems are getting larger in scale (e.g. plastic pollution and climate change) but the flexibility of the Earth's resources available is getting smaller. This shows a flaw in Lovelock's argument (1979) that the Earth is effectively a homeostatic system in that no homeostatic system can continue indefinitely without some maintenance being required. In other words the Earth cannot continue to heal itself indefinitely and this is irrespective of human behaviour which has affected this ability. This is why in his later writing Lovelock (2009, 2015) recognised this and claimed that the Earth was no longer capable of maintaining itself and that human action was needed.

Clearly the methodologies used for evaluating technological developments are actually unable to take into account the requirements for a sustainable future because the requirements are too diverse and seemingly unrelated. One problem is immediately apparent in that when evaluation is undertaken in economic terms then this is done by using the standard methods of investment appraisal. These require the use of a discounting methodology which is explained and justified by the claim that future cash flows are less certain, and risk becomes consequently more pronounced, and this become more so as we progress further into the future. Unfortunately this also has the problem that it signals that the future is less important than the present – hence the focus upon immediate benefits at the expense of possible future problems. This is in direct conflict with the definitions of sustainability which are based on the premise that the future is more important than the present and will certainly last much longer! This shows a problem with discounting the future and would suggest that the opposite is what should be used in any evaluation. This flies of course in the face of the economic imperative, which needs to be questioned in the context of sustainability.

The factors which are considered in an evaluation would seem to need to be broader also. One factor which is immediately apparent is that the methods of terotechnology should be broadened to consider not just the optimal running of any technology but also the whole life cycle (Crowther, 2004) from development to ultimate disposal of the technology at the end of its life. For example, if this had been applied to plastic, then the problems being faced in the present could have been alleviated. And disposal at the end of the life must include beyond the passing of the technology (and problems) to someone else. Other methodologies, such as those based upon cost benefit analysis, exist which take a broader look at the effect of any investment planned. These are probably not sufficient to recognise any potential future problems and interactions but they do at least recognise that immediate economic benefit.

Conclusions

The theme of this paper takes an anthropologic overview in order to illustrate that we have always used technology and the driver has always been an improvement in economic wealth and safety without regard to effects upon society or upon the planet. At the time of the Industrial Revolution the population is thought to be below 1 billion and so effects upon environmental resources could be ignored without any discernible effect. And people have always shown less concern for the effects upon society at large rather than upon their local family or community. Additionally the added benefit of food security probably outweighed any social costs and the powerful were not overly concerned with those in lesser positions. With the passage of time, however, this approach has been shown to be problematic but it is still not recognised that a broader evaluation over a longer period of time is essential to be able to solve the problems we are facing.

This paper is not arguing that technology should not be used, as clearly we have always used technology and continue to need to make use of it and to continue developing new to meet our needs. Nor is it concerned with the morality of expecting future generations to sort out any problems which we create, although I do not image our grandchildren will be too impressed if we leave them with unsolvable problems and reduce the options open to them! It is, however, arguing that we need to take a broader and longer term view of the benefits and potential problems, of technology before deciding to adopt it. It is however arguing that our current approach to technology with a concern for immediate economic benefit and disregarding the future and effects elsewhere is not satisfactory. Such an approach to technological development is naively myopic. And with the increasing importance of sustainability then we cannot afford this myopia.

Notes

1. https://www.bobdesautels.com/blog/2019/7/30/we-dont-inherit-the-earth-we-borrow-it-from-our-children-chief-seattle