To grasp the essence of ‘Digital for Good’, it is essential to acknowledge that technology, even when created with the best intentions for the greater good, is not inherently immune from producing adverse effects in society.
Technology itself is not inherently sustainable or positive.
A comprehensive understanding of ‘Digital for Good’ starts by thinking against oneself, especially as a technologist, with the acknowledgment of some critical paradoxes, paving the way for a more mindful and responsible approach to technological development in society.
There’s no technology without environmental debt
If technology is of great help and promise in the fight against climate change, the production and disposal of technology itself often contribute significantly to environmental degradation. It is primarily due to the use of natural resources and the impact of the manufacturing process on the environment. The shift to electric vehicles is a concrete illustration. While the aim is to reduce emissions, it requires a significant increase in lithium, cobalt, and other materials, potentially leading to ecological damage and geopolitical tensions over resource control. Moreover, the end-of-life disposal of these technologies poses challenges in terms of recycling and waste management.
Chaos theory applies to technology
While technology is rooted in scientific discoveries and principles, the broader impacts and consequences of its implementation may not always be entirely predictable. Technological interventions in complex ecological and social systems can have unpredictable and nonlinear outcomes due to the interconnected nature of these systems. Scientifically, this is understood through chaos theory. For example, introducing a new technology in agriculture might unexpectedly affect local biodiversity or social dynamics in ways that are difficult to predict and control.
Jevons paradox challenges technology’s efficiency beliefs
Increase in efficiency in using a resource can counterintuitively lead to an overall increase in the consumption of that resource, not a decrease. For example, this paradox challenges the notion that technological improvements in energy efficiency alone can reduce overall energy consumption and carbon emissions. Another example is on making cars more fuel-efficient which might lead to people driving more, potentially offsetting the gains from efficiency.
Band-aid solution is a technology trap
Technologies aiming at replacing a polluting one with a cleaner one, can be an illusion as this might overlook the need for more systemic change. For example, replacing internal combustion engine cars with electric vehicles doesn’t address the underlying issue of car-centric urban planning and the associated social and environmental impacts. Technologies which become a ‘band-aid’ solution, without tackling the underlying root causes of issues is the trap in which not to fall into.
Technology-fixes pledges for no ease
Not considering socio-economic and political factors, can lead to unintended consequences. For example, the Green Revolution in agriculture greatly increased crop yields but also led to problems like soil degradation, water depletion, and increased inequality. Another example is the use of facial recognition systems. Initially developed to enhance security and streamline identification processes, these have been criticized for biases against certain demographic groups, while raising privacy concerns. The “techno-fix” mentality can overlook the societal complexity issues, ultimately exacerbating existing inequalities.
Technology advancement does not necessarily mean progress
Technology advancement, undoubtedly associated with the notion of progress, may also go hand in hand with anchoring the status quo. Focusing only on technological solutions can distract from addressing the root causes of problems, leading to the preservation of overconsumption, unsustainable economic models, and unequal resource distribution. For instance, it might perpetuate a consumerist culture, where the solution to every problem is perceived as buying or creating something technologically new, rather than changing consumption habits or societal values.
Technological determinism only fits in theory
There’s a danger in assuming that technological development follows an inevitable, linear trajectory that will solve our problems. Just as Moore’s Law predicts a doubling of transistors on integrated circuits over time, there is a perception that technological progress will similarly double the solutions to societal problems. This view overlooks the complex interplay between technology and society while ignoring the fact that technological development is often driven by commercial interests and existing power structures, which may not always align with environmental or societal well-being.
Tomorrow’s technology promises don’t solve today’s realities
Relying heavily on future technological solutions can create a moral hazard overlooking the current limitations of these solutions while their promise of a future fix reduces the incentive to act responsibly now. For example, carbon capture and storage technologies are not yet proven at the scale necessary to significantly mitigate climate change. Placing faith in future technological breakthroughs should not be at the expense of more complacency in addressing current challenges.
Innovation-equity paradox exacerbates digital divide
The need for economic growth to fund technological innovation can overlook the socio-economic implications of a technology-driven approach. For example, there is a risk of widening inequality, as those with access to new technologies benefit more than those without. As new technologies emerge, they often require significant resources and expertise, accessible mainly to wealthy nations and individuals. This disparity can widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, both within and between countries.
Technological exploitation always has hidden human costs
The push for technological advancement, especially in the realm of AI, often obscures the human cost involved in its development. A stark example is the exploitation of workers who are tasked with tagging vast amounts of data to train AI systems. Often from lower-income countries, they are exposed to a relentless stream of digital content, which includes sorting and removing obscene or harmful images and videos. The reliance on such labor mirrors a global pattern where technological progress often comes at the expense of vulnerable populations.
Ethical Technology only exists as a reflection of its creators’ values
Technologies are not value neutral. They embed the values, priorities, and biases of their creators. This means that the societal and environmental impacts of a technology are often a reflection of the underlying value systems of those who develop and fund it. This can lead to technologies that perpetuate existing inequalities or fail to address the needs of marginalized communities. The long-term impacts of these technologies could lead to unforeseen negative consequences.
Technology has no exclusivity on innovation
The emphasis on high-tech solutions can overshadow and undervalue indigenous, local knowledge systems and frugal innovation that have sustained environments for centuries. These traditional practices, often more sustainable and adapted to local ecosystems, can be marginalized in the rush to adopt new technologies, leading to a loss of valuable ecological knowledge and cultural heritage. In addition, technological adaptation also means technological Maladaptation. For example, agricultural technologies developed for temperate climates may not work in tropical regions and can even harm these environments.
Yesterday’s technology decisions set limits to new technology adoption
Path dependency in technology suggests that once a society starts down a particular technological path, it becomes increasingly costly and difficult to switch to a different one. This can lead to a technological lock-in, where suboptimal technologies persist because of established infrastructure and systems. For example, the global reliance on fossil fuel-based energy systems is not just a matter of preference but a result of historical path dependencies.
Technology-Regulation gap is the best call for responsible technology
Technological innovations often outpace the establishment of necessary regulations, creating a regulatory gap. This gap not only poses a challenge for ensuring that technology is used ethically and equitably, but it also places a greater responsibility on creators and innovators. While the regulatory gap is essential to mature and guide the use of new technologies, their slower evolution does not absolve creators of the responsibility to avoid creating morally unacceptable situations.
Digital for Good is about acknowledging the current and long-term impact of paradoxes posed by technology to address its unsustainable nature for the well-being of society.
It aims to harness its benefits responsibly while maintaining a balanced and nuanced perspective about the potential negative externalities that might arise from its advancement.
As we harness the power of digital technology, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that it serves not only as a tool for innovation and efficiency but also as a catalyst for a more sustainable, equitable, and ethical future benefiting humanity.
