When low-tech is low-key genius
On overcoming our society's obsession with the latest technologies and the myth of linear progress
Welcome to a world where lethal weapons grow on trees. A world where human waste is recycled into fertilizer and fish food. Where websites run on intermittent energy sources like solar and sometimes go offline.
No, you’re haven’t been thrust into the faraway galaxies of sci-fi writer’s imagination. This is our world… This would be our world if we could accept that the latest technologies don’t always lead to more desirable outcomes. This is our world, but low-tech.
In the 21st century, calling something high-tech means more than just saying it’s the most recently invented technology. Most people will hear those words and automatically, unquestionably believe that whatever item they’re being presented is better than any alternatives that had existed so far.
Granted, there will always be holdouts. These are, stereotypically, older generations that don’t find digital user interfaces so friendly or conspiracy theorists doubtful of any device that could hide government-issued surveillance chips (even vaccines). But we can typically find consensus in the highest ranks of governments and corporations that new technologies are not only always better, they are needed in order to make any sort of meaningful progress as a society.
Promoters of low-tech lifestyles challenge this notion. They question the criteria that make people think high-tech alternatives are better than their predecessors. Most of the latest tech solutions, they say, are made to counter problems that arose from other technological “innovations”. Most importantly, they stress the fact that technological progress is not inevitable. We have the agency to examine proposed technologies and decide whether the improvements they provide are worth the societal and environmental cost to make and scale them.
The myth of linear progress has served many over the years. This is the idea that human civilization is developing at a steady rate that looks more like the arrow in the left side of the illustration below than anything else. The problem with this idea is that it’s simply untrue. Throughout the 300,000 years in which homo sapiens have existed on this planet and learned how to live in communities, those civilizations have flourished and failed countless times.
We have come to believe that the empires that last the longest must have been better in every way (more prosperous, more educated, more just). That, by conquering their enemies, they dragged them, unwilling and screaming, to a brighter future for all. But we must remember that history is written by the winners.
Those in power have committed terrible injustices on others in the name of progress. The myth of linear progress was the colonialist’s best friend, to start with. It was easy to justify their actions when they could claim to be helping “develop” the less civilized people of the world through industrialization and evangelization. This contributed to the dehumanization of colonized peoples and their horrific abuse. Those working in international development fields today must contend with this legacy if they’re to avoid perpetuating neocolonial structures today.
Those who support the myth of linear progress will point to markers that prove that the world has gotten better over time: life expectancy, infant mortality, economic output. I’m not here to argue against the first two, although I would disagree with using the third as a marker for the betterment of human civilization.
This harkens back to the different criteria low-tech advocates use when evaluating new technologies. Today, many start-ups get millions of dollars in funding for creating new technologies that make existing processes more efficient. Efficiency saves companies money and people time. But at what cost?
Generative AI might not use a significant amount of energy per query, but what if everyone started using it everyday for academic and professional purposes? What then, when the next technology emerges? The growth of energy and material consumption proves to be exponential when you take technological progress as an aggregate.
How do we avoid this? By being critical about the use case for each of these technologies every single time. In order to do this, we must take a fair look at the solutions that already exist. Not only other, earlier technologies, but even that which we wouldn’t usually classify as technology. For example, indigenous knowledge and techniques like using controlled fires to lessen the damage of wildfires or what are known as nature-based solutions.
If all the new technologies are offering is efficiency, thus reducing the time per task, who does that benefit? The answer, most of the time, is corporations. There was an era in which new technologies drastically increased the quality of life of citizens, especially women. When household items like washing machines and microwaves became mainstream, women found themselves with enough time on their hands to study and work.
Today, there are still revolutionary technologies being introduced to communities around the world to filter their drinking water or reduce the emissions they inhale from cooking stoves. These are not the technologies I’m talking about. For one, the very point of inventing them is to do more with less. Now, that’s innovation I can get onboard with.
But when it comes to high-tech solutions that only offer me a few more minutes of my time back—clicking an app on my phone instead of going to the store down the street, for one—, I must decline. These supposed conveniences and efficiencies are only making the labor, energy, and materials used in these tasks invisible so that the most privileged amongst us can go on obliviously believing that everything we want is at the tips of our fingers.
We must question our propensity to always choose the path of least resistance. We are only human. We will always want things to be easy. But what effect does it have on us when they are? If we’re not asked to use our hands or our brains, do we lose the ability to in the future? We’ve already seen how the popularization of GPS devices has led to a reliance on these technologies by most, many of whom can’t drive around their own city without them.
Technology sets us apart as humans from other animals. We’ve been making things since we came into existence as a species. There’s no black and white answer as to what technologies will ultimately do more harm than good. It would be easy and convenient to carry on without ever knowing, up until the balance tips and our planet becomes uninhabitable for one reason or another. But if we challenge ourselves to take a critical look at the tools we’re using and how they affect the future we’re charting for ourselves, we could be greatly rewarded.
That’s the irony about convenience. A lot of the times, it just ends up being more trouble in the long-run. We’re living in a golden age, enjoying all the benefits while passing the buck. At the rate we’re going, whoever that is will have no option but to opt for low-tech solutions. I suggest we practice now.