Ironic and tragic: technological fundamentalism and our fear of limits

Many political and military conflicts have been triggered by fundamentalism, whether religious, national or economic. These fundamentalisms are still very prevalent around the world and require vigilance from those who support political pluralism and celebrate human diversity.

But another fundamentalism, common today on both the left and the right, is even more dangerous: technological fundamentalism. While these other forces can unleash conflicts that cause great harm at certain times and in certain places, technological fundamentalism undermines the ecosphere's ability to sustain human life on a large scale in the not-too-distant future.

Today's worship of high energy and high technology threatens our survival, which is ironic and possibly tragic.

First, the definitions. By fundamentalism I mean any intellectual, political or theological position that is convinced of the truth and/or legitimacy of a belief system. Fundamentalism is an extreme form of hubris – excessive confidence not only in one's own beliefs but also in the human ability to definitively understand complex issues.

Capitalists who believe that markets always know best (except when governments need to bail out failing companies) are economic fundamentalists. Patriots who believe that the United States is always on the side of the angels (even when the U.S. government violates domestic and international law) are national fundamentalists. Believers who claim that their interpretation of a text is obviously correct (no matter how obscure that text may be) are religious fundamentalists.

A particularly dangerous feature of these belief systems is that their adherents often believe that their problems, often caused at least in part by their fundamentalism, can be solved by a more intensive application of fundamentalist teachings. Religions offer ethical guidelines that all too often become rigid rules that people cannot abide by; fundamentalists exacerbate this rigidity. Nation-states offer their citizens a sense of identity but all too easily cling to illusions of superiority; when conflicting claims of superiority arise, fundamentalists sharpen their rhetoric. Capitalism creates wealth but leads to inequality and economic instability; fundamentalists argue for freeing capitalism from any collective control.

What is technological fundamentalism and why is it even more dangerous?

Technological fundamentalists believe that the use of high-energy cutting-edge technology is always a good thing, and that the increasing use of ever more sophisticated high-energy cutting-edge technology can solve our problems, including those caused by the unintended consequences of previous technologies. These fundamentalists have no doubt that human knowledge is sufficient to control the world. But to claim such capabilities, we must assume that we can recognize all patterns in nature and learn to control all aspects of nature. That we so obviously cannot do these things does not shake the belief of technological fundamentalists.

Perhaps the best example of this fundamentalism is geoengineering, the belief that we can intervene in the climate system on a planetary scale to combat global warming caused by our high-energy, advanced technology. Given the massive human failure at much lower levels of intervention, this approach – for example, so-called solar radiation management, which involves injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight – seems literally insane.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing against all technology—people have been making tools for a long time. Instead, I am rejecting the irrational optimism that leads people to believe we can stay at existing high energy levels through endless innovation. This optimism is usually anchored in the belief that low-cost renewable energy will be available in sufficient quantities to replace fossil fuels. Innovation and renewable energy are important, and I am all for expanding research and development. But we need to look at the full cost of renewable energy and recognize that building the infrastructure to produce this energy has devastating environmental and social consequences, not to mention the continued use of environmental capital in the pursuit of an illusory “green growth.”

And finally, the painful irony and potential tragedy in all this.

Technological fundamentalists celebrate human creativity and ingenuity, which are indeed far-reaching. Humans are smart, and regardless of the ecological crises we have caused, all our gadgets are impressive. This faith in humans is often expressed in the claim that we can accomplish anything we set our minds to, on the principle that necessity is the mother of invention. The tech crowd, while acknowledging problems, claim that human intelligence produces solutions, even if those solutions may sometimes take time to arrive.

But there is an ecological solution that is ignored not only by technology worshippers but by almost all political movements, including much of the environmental movement: a collective agreement to impose limits on ourselves.

The core ecological problem is human consumption overshoot – too many people consuming too much in total, exhausting the ecosphere's ability to regenerate in time. Specific threats such as climate change are a consequence of overshoot, and the real solution to this is right in front of us: fewer and fewer. Fewer and fewer people use less energy and other materials. All we need to do is limit overall consumption and enforce rationing to promote equitable distribution.

This approach is never proposed in political campaigns and rarely discussed by mainstream environmentalists. When I have suggested it in conversations with people from the right or the left, the most common response is, “That will never happen.” I ask why, and the answer, often accompanied by eye-rolling, is, “People don't want to give up what they have.”

I don't agree with the observation that humans have a hard time resisting “the temptations of dense energy,” as my colleague Wes Jackson and I have noted. But if we are such a creative and inventive species, shouldn't we be able to take innovative public policies that change our own behavior? Why should we pretend we can control a world that is outside of our control, rather than banding together to control ourselves?

I don't have a simple three-step program for achieving less and less, and neither does anyone else. The task is daunting, precisely because dense energy not only leads to a flood of consumer goods that no one really needs and luxuries that few can afford. Capitalism's profit motive is part, but only part, of the problem. This dense energy also does work that makes our lives easier and more comfortable, and I find it hard to do without it. When I cut firewood, I use a chainsaw instead of a handsaw, not because of capitalist propaganda, but because it's faster and less taxing on my aging muscles.

Our future is becoming increasingly smaller, either because we rise to the challenge and put all our creativity and ingenuity into planning it, or because the forces of the larger living world impose limits on us. Technology has allowed us to temporarily push ecological boundaries, but this strategy cannot succeed indefinitely. As the saying goes, nature strikes last.

Our first step should be to abandon the hubris of technological fundamentalism and show genuine humility. The “fewer and less” approach does not lead to simple or easy answers, but it does offer a path to long-term survival. We lack strategies to implement tomorrow, but that does not mean we should not address the challenge today.

It is ironic that technological fundamentalists believe we can do anything we set our minds to except limit the greed of human endeavor. It would be tragic if this fundamentalism continued to dictate our course and the most horrific dystopian scenarios were our future.