Technology is Not the Answer – Part Three

Appropriate Technology, Convivial Tools

Introduction

Having discussed ‘the problem with progress’ in Part One, and explored some alternative societal paradigms in Part Two, the third and final part of this blog series will explore the dilemmas posed by our tools and technology.

Less is More

It is known that technology tends to improve with time – that each successive generation of tools becomes more efficient than the last. We are led to believe not only that maximum efficiency is maximally desirable, but that more is better – i.e. the more tech we have in our lives, surely the better our lives must be? This thinking prevails in western societies, but is rarely challenged. Challenging it, however, enables us to better assess the inevitable (and often hidden) pitfalls as well as the advantages of all the technologies that we incorporate into our lives.

Every tool is in reality a trade-off. No technology is perfect and all of it comes at a price – prices which we are not always aware that we are paying!

If the fundamental purpose of any tool or technology is to improve human welfare and/or increase human freedom – it is evident that, in many cases, our modern technologies are failing dismally on both counts.

Our lives today are filled with tools and technologies whose utility is matched, or even outweighed, by the sacrifices they demand: sacrifices not just in terms of our environment (as discussed in Part One), but also of natural human behaviours, social arrangements and ways of life.

This essay argues that, just as there is an ideal, sustainable level of consumption, there is also an ideal level of technological development, beyond which we see diminishing returns in terms of utility, and significant degradation in terms of human welfare. We currently face an overgrowth of technology that threatens the very things we ought to value most – our autonomy as individuals, the integrity and cohesion of our communities and the natural ecosystems upon which we depend.

Below I will outline two ideas offering a divergent perspective on technology and tell a different narrative about its place in our lives.

Convivial Tools

In 1973 a philosopher (and Catholic priest) named Ivan Illich wrote a book about the ‘proper’ use of technology. He argued that many of the problems in modern human society are caused by an ‘overgrowth of technology’, which restricts rather than enables freedom and reduces rather than enhances welfare. While not opposed to technology in itself, he argues for a careful distinction between ‘convivial’ and ‘un-convivial’ tools – one of the main concepts of the book.

“tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user.” – Ivan Illich

A truly convivial tool, by Illich’s definition, should only enable its user’s natural inclinations. It should not shape a person’s behaviours or guide their way of life. It should be free for use or reproduction by any one, and through using it, a person should find that it:

• Fulfils his existing needs and desires (rather than generating new needs and desires)
• Increases his freedom and independence and enhances his welfare (either physical or mental)
• Empowers him creatively

The point at which a tool ceases to be convivial is, in essence, when the ‘means take over the ends’. In other words, when a tool begins to transmute the essence of the task to which it is put; when a particular way of doing something begins to influence the reason for doing it; when the method is of greater influence than the objective.

One example of a convivial tool is an axe – it can be used in myriad ways to serve many different needs and desires, from gathering firewood to creative are. Its use is not restricted in any way and, similarly, it does not restrict those that use it or affect those who chose not to use it. It is a tool which increases freedom and ability.

Cars, on the other hand, he considers a prime example of an un-convivial tool.

• They require huge amounts infrastructure in order to be used properly, and only become useful if this infrastructure is put in place on a large scale;
• This large infrastructure affects the places where people live (both environmentally and aesthetically), even if they do not use or need a car themselves;
• It restricts the movement and choices of non-users (pedestrians), who cannot pleasantly, safely (or even legally in some cases) share the road with cars;
• The more people use them, the more people become forced to use them due to increasing distances between destinations (e.g. walkable corner-shops being supplanted by massive supermarkets on the outskirts of towns), the gradual de-pedestrianisation of roads as areas start to re-evolve around motorised transport, and societal expectations normalising commute by car on a mass scale. This means that people are forced to adopt the technology as other options become gradually less and less viable;
• They are made for the masses rather than the individual.

A convivial tool is not necessarily the most efficient or ‘luxurious’ solution to a problem – a car is far more high tech, far more decadent and far less effort-some to use than a bicycle – but Illich argues that in this instance its hidden cost is considerably higher than its use value.

Not all ‘high-tech’ is un-convivial, however. The book was written in the 70’s, and Illich uses the landline telephone system as an example of a convivial tool:

• Anyone can use them, but nobody is forced to.
• They fulfil the pre-existing need or desire to contact someone, but do not create this need themselves
• They do not restructure our behaviour
• Their infrastructural requirements do not reshape the communities in which they exist.
• They are open ended and do not demand a particular 

 If we apply the same thinking to smartphones, however, we find that they are far less convivial. Smartphones and social media are technologies that exist not for the sake of their users, but to profit manufacturers and patent holders. They give the illusion of utility, but in reality often end up restricting and influencing their users’ behaviour.

Prolonged screen time – and the associated sitting and slouching – damages our bodies; emotional investment in a virtual world over the physical one introduces artificial stresses and degrades our mental wellbeing. Incessant demands on our attention – not to mention the universal and instant availability of myriad forms of entertainment – shorten our attention span and diminish our ability to merely ‘be’ without diversion.

• Not easily made or replicated
• Subtly influence and alter users’ behaviours over time, increasing their dependence on said technology
• Starting to influence society as text/call/app verification becomes implemented into security (notably in online banking), often without provision of a non-smart phone alternative
• Employers start to expect their employees to be contactable at all hours, with threats of repercussions if unresponsive
• Need charging often
• Track users’ data and locations, 

Illich also criticises the over-institutionalisation of human life (institutionalised schooling, overzealous medical care and the funeral industries are a few of his examples), arguing that such bureaucracies (themselves a type of ‘tool’) encroach upon human freedom and do more harm than good.

The essence of his argument is that tools, technology and larger systems (such as institutions) should exist in harmony not only with the environment, but with the way human beings naturally live, rather than manipulating our behaviour into artificial patterns or otherwise limiting it through imposed inconveniences.

Appropriate Technology

Appropriate technology is in many ways similar to the idea of conviviality. It is a movement towards people-centric technology, meaning tech that places its contribution to quality of life within a community over any other incentive, such as profit, growth or social manipulation. The nature and scale of an appropriate technology is appropriate to the community in which it exists – hence the name.

An appropriate technology is:

• Robust: well suited to its purpose and well adapted to its environment.
• Should not require frequent modification, update or repair
• Should be truly sustainable or replenishable
• Should benefit the majority over a minority
• Should support rather than supplant small-scale industries and endeavours within a community.

Some schools of thought define appropriate technology as the simplest possible technology required to solve a given problem. Examples often cited are bicycles, manual water pumps or public lavoirs (laundry basins). Like ‘convivial tools’, this thinking shuns unnecessary complications in favour of minimal requirements for use and maximal availability and versatility.

Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated the use of simple, ‘village’ technologies to further self-sufficiency within Indian communities, is considered to be one of the contributing thinkers to the concept of appropriate technology. But Dr. E. F. Schumache is considered its founding father. In 1962 Schumache coined the term ‘intermediate technology’ to describe a particular means for rural development in low-income communities. By 1973 (coincidentally the same year Illich published ‘Tools for Conviviality’) his published work on the subject – ‘Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered’ – rechristened the idea as ‘appropriate technology’ and presented his thinking alongside a critique of globalisation and mainstream economics.

While the concept was originally orientated towards improving quality of life in the third world, it has gained recognition in developed nations and has lately enjoyed somewhat of resurgence. In the west we have lost or abandoned many appropriate technologies that once facilitated a traditional and more communal way of life.

Useful public facilities are in decline. Gone are village pumps and wells – now mostly locked or removed – gone are many public telephone boxes, libraries and drinking fountains – particularly in rural areas. This is not to say that public facilities do not exist, but those that remain are mainly orientated towards leisure (play parks, bike borrowing schemes and public gym equipment, being good examples) rather than facilitating cottage industries and domestic tasks.

This is a shame, since it diminishes people’s ability to provide for themselves without inviting all sorts of technologies into their homes. Over time, our choices have been narrowed, but the narrowing is so gradual that every small loss is accepted as ‘a small price to pay for X’.

We are compelled to drive where before we could have walked; we are encouraged to abandon the ancestral hearth fire in favour of total dependence on the grid for heating. Most homes are built without root cellars, meaning we must depend on fridges and freezes to preserve our stocks of food (if, indeed, we keep stocks at all in this age of supermarkets). Many houses are now built without gardens and few communities have enough allotments for all those who would use them. And on and on it goes, with every generation seemingly better equipped, and yet more constrained than the last.

Appropriate and Convivial – technological ideals

Convivial tools have much in common with the concept of appropriate technology. When considered together, they present an interesting framework for rethinking the place and purpose of technologies within our lives.

Our dependence on un-convivial tools and inappropriate technologies – not to mention our society’s love affair with large companies and institutions – is a concerning state of affairs.

Were we to consider these philosophy when inviting tools into our homes and societies, we might not be so quick to embrace ‘efficiency’ as the ultimate goal. Community, conviviality, self-sufficiency and freedom are in the end, surely more worthy ideals than limitless comfort and convenience?

It is no coincidence that convivial tools and appropriate tech tends also to be lighter on the earth than those at the opposite end of the spectrum. Simple tools take less resources to produce and are less destructive. We evolved alongside the axe, the spear, the pot and the drum, and myriad other tools which supported human life and society for 300,000 years, without threatening our welfare or degrading our environment.

We now navigate a world crammed full of man-made appliances – many of which we pay for dearly, at costs we do not even fully comprehend. We often forget that technology’s first purpose was to facilitate the fundaments and enrich the essence of human life, not to remould its very nature. It is possible that, in some ways, our technology is now out-evolving us. Much of it now exists for its own sake and in many ways serves its own ends.

Reducing our technological arsenal to only those tools which truly serve us – which fulfil our needs without making demands on us and which enable small communities to flourish – would not only make us happier as a species, it would significantly lessen our demands on the earth.

Perhaps it is time to prune the technological overgrowth – to really examine what we use and determine which of our tools serve us and which of them we serve. At the end of the day, all technology should exist to enhance independence and invigorate our lives, without destroying the planet we live on. Everything else is dysfunctional.