ABSTRACT

It is proposed that appropriate technologies are those technologies which are appropriate for the promotion and maintenance of sustainable culture. After briefly defining the the terms technology and appropriate technology, the three cultural pre-conditions for appropriate technology will be discussed. General environmental andsocio-economic criteria for the development of appropriate technologies will be enumerated.

There are three general cultural pre-conditions for developing Appropriate Technology: An understanding and willingness to abide by ecological principles, and understanding and appreciation of technology's influence on human society and culture, and a recognition of the human ability to direct technology, with a concomitant willingness to do so. Each of these three pre-conditions will be examined in turn. Then, some criteria for Appropriate Technology will be discussed.

An idea first formulated by the British economist E.F. Schumacher, "Appropriate Technology" exists in many different forms and flavors. (Willoughby, p. 15) The following concise definition is apropos to the discussion at hand: Appropriate technologies are those systems of technology which promote and maintain a sustainable culture. Appropriate Technology is normally split into two families: The industrialized country or Northern family and the developing country or Southern family. (Jequirez, p. 4) I am primarily concerned with the North. The Modern industrial culture of North America, Europe and other industrialized nations is hardly sustainable, and the technologies employed here exhibit dubious appropriateness.

Before proceeding further, "technology" requires some definition. While technology is an ubiquitous part of the cultural landscape, the terminology concerning it is somewhat indistinct. Kelvin Willoughby defines technology as "the ensemble of artefacts intended to function as relatively efficient means." (Willoughby, p. 38) This definition indicates that technology involves a system, that it is a product of human activity, and that it is intended to facilitate the achievement of certain goals. The importance of these three points will be seen shortly. I will use the term somewhat more liberally, including what Willoughby terms "technology-practice:" The noun referring to "all operations, activities, situations or phenomena which involve technology." (Willoughby, p. 40)

It has been recognized that developing Appropriate Technology requires changes in the socio-political and cultural status quo at least concurrently with technology design, if not as prerequisites. (Willoughby, p. 4) The three cultural pre-conditions mentioned above are of critical importance. It is my contention that in the United States at least, these pre-conditions are not yet present in the culture.

The first pre-condition to consider is an understanding of the basic ecological principles of interconnection, diversity, finite limits and change. Having been understood, these principles will need to be followed. This earth, the biosphere we inhabit, is an integrated system which is in turn a part of the larger systems of the solar system, galaxy and universe. Within the biosphere there are countless subsystems. Through this complex system of systems, the connections between everyone and everything can be seen. Connection means that human activities have an effect on other humans as well as the non- human parts of the biosphere. This sounds only logical, but we frequently behave as if this interconnection doesn't exist. Much of Western science and technology has been based on the idea that things can be abstracted out of context, out of connection and manipulated. Only during the past century has the untenability of this situation become apparent. Even so, a mechanistic, disconnected paradigm continues to dominate the thinking of our culture as a whole.

Embracing interconnection necessarily leads to seeing the big picture. Prerequisites for sustainable communities have been proposed which utilize input-output modelling. (Meier) But where do these inputs ncome from? What effects will their use have on their sources? Similarly, wastes are output. What happens to this waste? Where does it go? In whose backyard does it end up? Envisioning a sustainable community requires considering the sustainable region, the sustainable nation, the sustainable planet.

This systems approach bears directly on technology choice. "The idea of choosing technology a la carte is mistaken." (Hofseth p. 37) the requirements and effects of various technology-systems will need to be considered for the entire life-cycle of the technologies in question.

Diversity is the second major ecological principle of concern. It has been shown that the biosphere exhibits a tendency toward greater biodiversity. (Wilson) Greater diversity is seen as best, meaning a healthy and stable planet. By analogy, the notion of diversity can be applied to human culture, and even to technology systems. (Willoughby, p. 292) Our culture should respect and foster diversity instead of trying to create an unnatural monoculture in the biological, cultural and technological domains.

While the consideration of interconnection reveals an ever-widening circle of systems, another ecological principle, that of finite limits, comes into play at the planetary level, and for many practical purposes on lower levels as well. There is only so much that can be produced, accomplished and sustained by the biosphere and by smaller divisions of land and sea.

Although this notion of limits (once again) accords with common sense, humans behave as if there are no limits. Herman Daly and John Cobb claim that we are in the midst of "growthmania," where more growth, economic or otherwise is both always possible and always desirable.

(Daly and Cobb, p. 232) Growthmania is deeply embedded in the fabric of our culture. Although there is widespread discussion of population control, placing limits on economic growth is only seriously discussed by a small minority. It is obvious that a steady-state approach to economics should be adopted. Technology innovation is closely linked with economics. Adopting steady-state paradigms will necessarily affect technology. Growthmania appears in technology in the unmanageable rate of change and in the constant development and use of largely superfluous technologies.

The fourth and final ecological principle is change. Without exception, all things change. Nothing is permanent, despite human desires to the contrary. Without accepting change, there is little hope of developing a viable culture and suitably flexible technologies. A potential contradiction presents itself between the concepts of sustainable culture and steady-state economics on one hand, and the principle of change on the other. "Sustainable" should not be taken to imply 'permanent, unchanging.' It should rather indicate a system that can continue dynamically, changing as necessary to fit circumstances, evolving at a rate compatible with the rate of change of the system(s) upon which it depends. The idea of change should never be taken as denying the possibility of continuity; change is rather an organic, evolutionary process. An unsustainable culture is one that invites catastrophe: a disruption of continuity, a rapid change from fair to bad to worse, a change from a state of high potential for future development to a state of low or non-existent potential for future development.

Similarly, a steady-state economics would not be an economics where nothing happens, or where there is no change. It is instead an economics where growth and decay are balanced and permitted to happen at a reasonable rate, allowing the successful adaptation of the culture to each new equilibrium. Accepting change means designing technologies that anticipate evolutionary possibilities. It cautions against building card houses (or nuclear reactors) on geological faultlines. It indicates that technologies might need to be kept at a manageable scale.

This discussion of ecological principles is based on the premise that technology is a cultural artefact (or system of artefacts). Therefore a suitably sustainable culture is needed to create sustainable technology. The next cultural pre-condition to consider is founded on the idea that technology can in turn influence culture, either by bringing about changes not foreseen by the designers (and sometimes clearly foreseen), or by reinforcing those elements in culture which created it.

Technology "has generally been regarded as a neutral factor in social and economic policy." (Willoughby, p. 8) But Jerry Mander, among others, asserts that "every technology has inherent and identifiable social, political, and environmental consequences." (Mander, p. 49)

In short, technology cannot be assumed to be value-neutral. The common platitude is that it is not technology itself that is a problem but how it is used. On the contrary, some technologies are problematic no matter how they are used. Automobiles require roads, parking lots, gasoline. They also have caused a rearrangement of social structures to forms that accommodate the auto. Similarly, nuclear reactors, by their very nature, require dangerous radioactive materials, large capital investment and therefore highly centralized authority.

While the environmental consequences of certain technologies are nearly indisputable, the social consequences are not. It could be argued, for example in the case of the automobile above, that what has occurred is the achievement of greater human freedom to arrange societies according to tastes. Humans were constrained by their (relative) lack of mobility before the automobile, now we are free. However, this freedom is one which in most parts of North America no one is free to do without. Now, those without `wheels' are penalized by society, becoming second class citizens. We are all held captive in communities planned to accommodate the auto, not people. In many places it is no longer possible to visit a food store of any kind without an automobile; in some places one can not cross the street in safety on foot.

Of course, one cannot solely blame the automobile for problems such as these. But the auto is clearly a natural accomplice. There are many more examples of technologies that permit, encourage or coerce people to do things that are detrimental to society and in contradiction to ecological principles mentioned earlier. As long as the inherent consequences of technologies are not acknowledged it will be difficult to develop more appropriate ones.

While many people do acknowledge the influence of technology on culture and environment, they frequently express a feeling of powerlessness in the matter. We are told to stop being so idealistic, that no one can stop the technology juggernaut. While this pessimistic opinion is very widespread and firmly entrenched, there is no logical reason, given the definition of technology stated earlier, why this must be so. If technology "is the ensemble of artefacts intended to function as relatively efficient means," then it must be subject to human control. An artefact, is after all something created by humans; it is not an inherently autonomous entity. What autonomy it possesses we give it. There is no reason why, having determined our desired ends (in this case, a sustainable culture), we can't create the technology necessary to obtain these ends. Unfortunately, as our technology systems become increasingly complex, it becomes easier to carelessly create autonomous technologies. Today, exerting control over technology requires a recognition of the ability to do so and "a deliberate and concerted effort." (Willoughby, p. 328)

This concludes the discussion on cultural pre-conditions for appropriate technology. These three pre-conditions of understanding ecological principles, understanding the influence of technology on culture and environment and understanding the possibility of human control over technology are necessary foundations for actually creating and implementing appropriate technologies in the real world. As such, they should be major topics of discussion and study among all students destined for technology related professions, such as engineering and industrial design.

Based on the preceding discussion, some general criteria for Appropriate Technology can now be expressed. These criteria are by no means definitive, but they provide a good starting point for evaluating technology systems. The criteria may be split into two categories: Cultural and environmental; but only as long as it is kept in mind that these categories are in reality inseparable. Effects on environment affect culture and vice versa. These categories are formed as an aide to analysis and nothing more.

While considering the possible environmental effects of a proposed technology, it is necessary to consider effects resulting from its creation or construction as well as a result of its use. It is relatively easy to build technologies that are environmentally benign in one or the other of these phases, but not so easy to satisfy both conditions. For example, computer technology is relatively benign environmentally in its use, even offering a distinct advantage by (theoretically at least) reducing the need for paper. But the manufacture of computers is another matter. Many toxic, volatile substances are required. The use of these substances constitutes a major toxic waste problem. Additionally, the production of these substances is itself a toxic waste problem. (Remember, everything is connected!) This problem is exacerbated by the rapid rate at which computers become obsolete, requiring the constant churning out of newer models.

Other technologies are environmentally destructive in their use. Automobiles, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants for example. Many technologies are destructive in their use because they consume non- renewable resources. Some common home appliances are of dubious appropriateness because they use electricity needlessly. We live in a society obsessed with superfluous, wasteful electric gadgets. The safety razor was a great invention; the electric razor was not. So the questions to ask about any technology are: Does it result in environmental destruction or resource depletion in its creation/construction? In its implementation/use?

The cultural or social criteria for appropriate technology are much harder to pinpoint but no less important. There are several closely related points to consider. First, does the technology promote and encourage direct democracy whenever possible, or does it stifle it? In our increasingly complex world, we are constructing technologies which tend to increase the need for and influence of centralized authority. As technologies become overly complex, only a small cadre of experts can exert control over them, effectively creating a technocratic oligarchy. This goes against democratic principles we so highly prize in the Northern countries. Community autonomy should be preserved on a multitude of levels such as household, local, regional and national. Of course, cooperation and tolerance between communities is very important and I do not advocate the cheap nationalism so popular in many parts of the world today. People need to be able to direct their own lives, and have a say in all matters that affect them.

The second question to ask, which relates to first, is does the technology in question foster community self-reliance? this was an important concern for E. F. Schumacher and others trying to develop appropriate technologies for the countries of the South who were becoming overly dependent on the North. It is of equal importance to the North itself, in rural and urban areas alike. In the United States, many rural areas are economically depressed, and have become beholden to persons and corporations far away for what little economic viability there is. There are urban communities in an analogous situation. What role does technology play in this? Those systems which can be largely (if not totally) built maintained and utilized within the community, keeping valuable capital in hands of bona fide community members and meeting community needs first, are deemed best.

The third question, necessarily relating to the previous one, is thus: Does the technology contribute to community stability over space and time? will it allow the community to have cohesion and flexibility, and allow people to stay put and have "roots" if they wish? This involves the concern of Schumacher, as reported by Roberto Vacca that "a technology be capable of creating jobs in places where people already are and not in overpopulated cities." (Vacca, p. 26) Highly centralized production systems disrupt communities, as people migrate to centers of production. Transplanting the centralized factory technology to the rural community is no solution as this will very likely distort the fabric of the local community and foster a dependence on the industry in question, invariably owned by individuals or corporations outside the community.

The next criterion to consider is whether or not a proposed technology allows for or even encourages an equitable distribution of wealth. Some technological systems, encouraging centralized control also concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. People become impoverished by buying into a technology system which continues to drain them of wealth by constantly requiring upgrades and additions. The benefits of these technologies only occasionally exceed the cost. Alternately, expensive, complex technologies that offer real advantage, can only be afforded by a few already well off persons. These technologies enable them to succeed and increase their wealth while the poor are left in the dust. Once again the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Increasingly, the old `middle-class' is joining the lower class at the back of the bus. A prime example of this is how advanced (and costly) agricultural technologies encourage giant agribusiness farms, putting small, family-owned farms out of business.

Another question to ask is whether or not a technology permits and encourages human growth and fulfillment. Many modern production systems are stifling to the human spirit. Other technologies supply people with vacuous material goods which serve as a poor substitute for real human fulfillment. Also it is important to consider whether or not a given technology accords with human values and aesthetics. Technology has the real possibility of doing all our work for us. Assuming that we could get paid for just living (an unlikely prospect given the current public opinion toward welfare programs), would this really be a desirable and healthy state of affairs? Also, when considering all these points, it is worth keeping in mind that an otherwise appropriate technology that is "ugly" won't get very far.

The last criterion, which could easily be placed in the environmental category, is whether or not a given technology has negative effects on human physical or mental health. Few would question this point, but we continue to concoct technologies which cause real health risks. In discussing the various criteria for appropriate technology I do not mean to suggest that technology is a sole cause of the problems mentioned, thereby adopting a simplistic "technological determinism." (Willoughby, p 328) However the idea of appropriate technology is based on the assertion that technology does play an important role in determining environmental and cultural well-being. To persist in believing the myth of value-neutral technology is to court disaster.

seems overly negative and critical with respect to modern technological practice, it would be perhaps helpful to consider a few points from Jerry Mander: "Since most of what we are told about new technology comes from its proponents, be deeply skeptical of all claims." And also, "In thinking about technology within the present climate of technological worship, emphasize the negative. This brings balance." Humankind always has and always will use technology. But shouldn't we choose our tools with care?

REFERENCES

Daly, Herman E. & Cobb, John B. Jr. _For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future_ Beacon Press, Boston 1989.

Hofseth, Paul "Ecology and Appropriate Technology," in _Mobilizing Appropriate Technology_ edited by Matthew S. Gamser, IT Publications, London 1988.

Jequier, N. "Appropriate Technology: Some Criteria," _Towards Global Action for Appropriate Technology_ edited by A.S. Bhalla, Pergamon Press, New York 1979.

Mander, Jerry _In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations_ Sierra Club Books, San Francisco 1991.

Meier, Richard L. "Prerequisites for Sustainable Communities" In listserv list "et-tor@searn.sunet.se", item 000082, 03/01/94

Vacca, Roberto _Modest Technologies for a Complicated World_ Pergamon Press, New York 1980.

Willoughby, Kelvin W. _Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement_ IT Publications, London 1990.

Wilson, Edward O. _The Diversity of Life_ The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1992.

Back...