The 40-year on retrospective conference held in Bristol last
Sept, looking at the ideas in the famed Undercurrents ‘Radical Technology’ book and their relevance now, was great fun.
Not just a nostalgia fest. And not all about technology- though choices about that shape social choices,
or is it vice versa? Certainly, as was clear at the conference, there’s a polarisation
between what some call ‘ecomodernism’ and deep green thinking, with tech and society looking very different in each.
The vision offered by some eco-modernists involves centrally run
intense technology, based on nuclear plus hydroponics/vertical farming- almost
‘space colonies’ on earth! With the selling point being that these
almost sealed cities can be high tech concentrated population centres,
leaving the rest of the ecosystem more or less alone to revert to
wilderness. All sorts of problems: a living urban consumerist hell, run by
technocrats, with growth central. The other extreme is the very deep green
wilderness view, with no growth and low impact tribal groups scattered
around using low tech in bioregionally defined pockets. Sounds like
Wales as George Monbiot would like it! Lots
of problems there too..it needs low population.
Less extreme is a mix of smart high tech and decentralisation,
but with stablised human activities distributed across the ecosystem, except in
a few (large) protected areas, in the belief that we are part of the
ecosystem and should remain so as long as we learn to live in it
better. Lots of problems- can we balance populations and resources fairly?
And limit growth?
RT2 explored some paired down versions of the above:
1 A ‘surprise free innovation’ global scenario in which
clever new high tech deals with eco limits and problems and supports continued
growth (for some!).
2. A low tech decentralist future, based on sharing and deeply
green and humanitarian values. Something most would like, but which may be a
long way off.
3. A rapid transition approach based on the best green tech,
using CATs Zero Carbon Britain model.
There were no definitive conclusions at RT2, but the debate on
the options was lively. No 1 inevitably was pretty unpopular, but might be
where we are heading as things stand. For some 2 was lovely but unlikely,
except perhaps in niches, although it might spread in time. 3 was maybe more
technically credible, but still politically hard to achieve.
There was surprisingly little debate about the technologies
themselves. Although some clearly felt that some of those in 1 were suspect, it
seemed to be assumed that technology could deliver a viable, if a little
quantitatively frugal, lifestyle in 2, and a coherent system in 3. Much less
clear was the exact mix, the basic social structure and the scale of the systems
it relied on. How much localization? How much high technology? Who decides?
The debate on the way forward seemed to focus mainly on consumption, with, in the energy area,
the good news being that some energy consumers are now also
energy producers, although these prosumers (and energy co-ops) will
of course have to buy in PV kit manufactured somewhere- most probably in
China in sweat shops! That opens up all sorts of issues about global trade and
working conditions. But also automation. Some say that production can
be done by automated plants- as US libertarians like Bookchin and
the Goodmans once thought. It seems unlikely, but who knows. A new work-free world! Though can
personal services also be automated? Will we see bands of redundant
aromatherapists storming the RT2 Bastille?
The focus on consumption does of course lead back into the
debate on growth, a key issue at
RT2, and also of course more widely – see my last post. Can it really be
halted?
Which brings us back to the deep green view. Technology could help avoid
some resource and impact limits, but, it is argued, given a finite planet with
limited carrying capacity, no amount of technical fixing could deal with our
eco-problems, or our social and political problems, if we remained in a
growth-reliant economy based on continued and ever accelerating expansion of
resource use. The Guardian came up
with a similar view- renewables weren’t enough, big economic system
changes were also needed: www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can
So we are talking about a move to a steady-state global economy: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615010471
However, as noted above, many RT2 enthusiasts still felt that new
cleaner greener technologies could help make this possible -and livable. They
could be part of the practical focus for local transitions, enabled by emerging
grass roots groups and building up capacity for a more decentralised
co-operative society. Radical stuff! Updates on the initiatives and ideas explored were promised: www.radicaltechnology.org
One of
the proposed links forward was to the next conference, the 40 years on
celebration of the Lucas workers alternative plan, held in Birmingham in
November: http://lucasplan.org.uk. In looking for alternatives to job cuts and
the dole, the pioneering mid-1970s Lucas Aerospace workers plan had been
ahead of the curve, challenging established thinking about what could
be produced and what was needed. It identified many
social useful product ideas, including a range of
alternative energy technologies that have now
become mainstream, as we seek to avoid climate change: www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-47fc-The-Lucas-Plan,-then-and-now#.WDr4QFxB_2s
With the social and environmental issues now if
anything being even more urgent, current political and economic priorities
need to be challenged, and support for, and awareness
of, greener approaches to technology is now wider than it
was in the 1970s. So the conference asked, what can we learn from this celebrated
grass-roots initiative? Can we do more and better than they did?
There
were some expectations that perhaps were wrong and could not be fulfilled. With
Trident in mind, the poster for the conference talked of ‘Jobs Not Bombs’, and
depicted Lucas Aerospace as a ‘defence company’, whereas in reality, like
British Aerospace now, it was active across the aerospace sector, in civil
aviation as well as military systems.
That detail may not matter, but clearly it didn’t make bombs! But like
all high tech engineering firms, in theory it could make almost anything. So
why not wind turbines and solar systems? Actually it and its parent company
Joseph Lucas, had tinkered with ideas like that- Lucas even built a battery
electric car. However, no market existed
for that sort of thing at that time. The Lucas workers plan sought to create
one, for example by attempting to engage Local Authority support and cash for
the alternative heating systems it proposed and calling for government support
for other public-sector led projects. That didn’t work - it was a time of cuts.
Local Authorities are now if anything even more strapped for cash, but there
are some good local projects, often featuring renewables centrally.
A
range of local community and trade union groups certainly attended the
Birmingham event and some interesting ideas for community transitions and
industrial conversion were discussed. It was somewhat more focused than the Radical Technology 2 conference, with a
different, more activist and politically committed audience, as you might
expect. There was an interesting debate in Birmingham about
automation and its impact on jobs, and also about the role of
alternative/radical technology- the main focus of RT2. However, the emphasis in
Birmingham was more on political control: www.redpepper.org.uk/what-if-the-workers-were-in-control/
So
what’s the bottom line? Clearly AT/RT has a place in the transition process,
but just switching to new better technology, like renewable energy systems,
does not automatically lead to a better society. There are several African and
Latin America countries getting near 100% of their power from hydro (Norway
too), but that doesn’t make them into utopias. Scotland, now getting over 50%
of its power from renewables like wind, was maybe a more progressive country
than England, but this technological commitment was a result of that political position, not its cause. Nevertheless, a
practical technological focus can provide a tangible context for local action,
campaigning and direct involvement via co-ops and conversion plans. It is about
a real physical change in how things are done and, to an extent, who decides on
how they are done. That seemed to be accepted at both of gatherings, in Birmingham and Bristol.
So, although very different, they did come to some similar views, at
least on the potential role of technology in social and political change.
