Nesbit’s rule and ‘chameleon’ technologies
“And there’s a dreadful law here … that if any one asks for
machinery they have to have it and keep on using it.” – Edith Nesbit (1910) in “The Magic City”.
The physicist Freeman
Dyson quotes Edith Nesbit in his 1979 book “Disturbing the Universe” and adds
that he realized that Nesbit’s “Magic City”
is, in fact, our own world. He applies Nesbit’s rule to cars, nylons and
nuclear weapons. Dyson also points out that the scientific endeavor is, in
principle, unpredictable. We do not get to pick whether the toys we asked for
are good or bad. (The problem is even more acute, with toys that are both good
and bad.) And some inventions (Dyson notes) – again unpredictably – proliferate
madly, while the large majority fall by the wayside.
It may takes decades before the scientific community
realizes that an apparently innocuous, beneficial technology has global
negative effects. Since these technologies were so obviously innocuous and
beneficial, they were widely accepted and spread rapidly (so-called ‘technology
diffusion’). In fact, it is a no-brainer that such a beneficial technology will
have global outreach.
Such obviously dangerous technologies like nuclear reactors
and nuclear weapons are not discussed here. Although one might mention that
nuclear meltdowns may be the least of our problems, since nuclear winter is
likely to have even more far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.
Four examples of such technologies are obvious (although
there are bound to be others that I have overlooked e.g. asbestos and genetically modified organisms, GMOs):
a)
DDT and other similar pesticides: Rachel Carson
gave a wake-up call with her book ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962. (DDT was invented in
1939 and used in World War Two to control malaria).
b)
CFCs were
first used for refrigeration in 1928 (that preserved foods and medicines for
long time periods) started causing ozone depletion (banned in 1996) and hence
skin cancer.
c)
Plastics, invented much earlier but widely
introduced by the 1960’s, have been found floating in the Pacific Ocean in at
least 80,000 tons, in the last 5 years [1]. Are plastics safe for human
consumption? Maybe, maybe not. But microbeads are unlikely to be safe.
d)
The internal combustion engine combined with
fossil fuels has contributed significantly to human progress (the model T was
rolled out by Ford in 1908) – and to pollution and, more importantly, global
warming. At this point, the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect – which
would turn Earth into Venus – cannot be ruled out, although it would be
described as being unduly alarmist, Cassandra-like.
DDT was outed within two decades… but the global warming
story is at the other end of the spectrum. The Swedish physicist Svante
Arrhenius proposed in 1896 that fossil fuel burning will increase the average
temperature of the atmosphere, and various scientists persevered with the basic
idea, but it was not till 1988 that most experts were agreed that doubling CO2
in the atmosphere would raise average temperature by 1 °C [2], and in 2001 that the
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a formal statement
agreed by consensus… and even today many governments are not in agreement. That
is closer to 120 years…
It is ironic that the fact that plastics remain stable for
thousands of years, and their being virtually indestructible - a highly desirable trait - should come back to bite us. These plastics
reach the oceans via streams, rivers and beaches and now slosh around over
thousands of square kilometers in the oceans… So now we are trying to ban
plastic straws, but still cling on to cling wrap to keep food fresh and
hygienic.
It is obvious to anyone that each of the above inventions
seemed to be ‘safe’ and came with enormous benefits. Also, none of these
technologies is dangerous - unless they are widely used by a large human
population, which is large and still increasing… These technologies have
morphed into dangerous forms, so they may be referred to as ‘chameleon’
technologies.
With hindsight, today we can claim that we know better - but
it is unclear if we will be able to identify future ‘chameleon’ technologies
(for the same reason that Dyson gave). The problems that we have with
statistics are significant: it took a long time even to rigorously prove that nuclear
radiation is bad for people in a statistically significant way. We have
supercomputers and neural networks and are on our way to creating multi-purpose
artificial intelligence, but we are not able to foresee the consequences of all
our actions. It may be, in principle, impossible.
The precautionary principle, propounded by
environmentalists, suggests that we should avoid any actions that may
cause harm – but will we give up our cellphones? Or just keep them away from
the heads of young children? Critics would argue that the precautionary
principle, strictly applied, would lead to paralysis. It would be foolish to give
up on development when we have the power (we think) to eradicate poverty? The
train is moving too fast for us to stop it (even if we wanted to); it’s more
akin to a juggernaut. Indeed we share a quasi-religious faith in progress,
driven by S & T.
Environmentalists have been giving significant negative
feedback on the fallout from S & T. Perhaps one of the most significant was
the Limits to Growth report of the Club of Rome in 1972 [3]. It was widely
criticized because its predictions were doom-and-gloom. Contrary to their
predictions, no mass famines occurred in Asia and Africa, for example.
Nevertheless, their basic idea – that the Earth has a finite ‘carrying
capacity’ – has been accepted. So the concept of the ecological footprint of
each person has become commonplace, and sustainability is the buzzword. We ask
how many Earths do we need to meet the lifestyle aspirations of every human being?
However, though the human condition has improved – as can be
seen from life expectancy figures almost all over the world - the same cannot
be said for species other than humans (and their client species). They are
dying out in huge numbers, an extinction event that is unparalleled in history.
There is no evidence that the rate of extinction of species is slowing down. A
2014 study by Pimm et al [4] stated that the rate of extinction is a thousand
times higher today than in the absence of humans (the ‘background’ extinction
rate). For example, Lovejoy’s research (quoted in Elizabeth Kolbert’s book [5])
has shown that the fragmentation of forest habitats (by human activity)
drastically reduces species diversity. And if we add the multiplier effect of
anthropogenic global warming, even fewer species will be able to adapt.
So what is meant by ‘sustainable growth’? Can we ‘sustain’
the Sixth Extinction [5]?
Many scientists and technologists are inherently optimistic
(which is why the Limits to Growth report was unpopular). They believe that any
problem created by technology can be solved by more technology (‘techno-fix’).
CFCs can be replaced by some other refrigerant that will not destroy ozone. Pollution
emitted by cars can be handled by catalytic converters, low sulphur fuels etc –
and, if all else fails, just wear a mask! An inexpensive solution can be found
to bury all the carbon dioxide that humans emit (in the ocean, in limestone,
etc.).
However, it is far from obvious that this optimism is
justified. S & T have amplified our powers to the extent that all our
actions have global consequences, while the rest of the world would like to catch
up with unsustainable Western lifestyles (how many Earths?).
At one level, there is no need to worry: in the worst case,
we may manage to wipe out all forms of life other than cockroaches, tardigrades
and bacteria (including us, of course). So what? The system will reboot, as it
has done in the past. It’s just that we won’t be there to see it.
As of now, there is no
Plan(et) B, although there are plans by Elon Musk to set up a base on Mars [6],
and by Lockheed Martin [7]…
One problem with S & T is that it accelerates. Heidi
and Alvin Toffler pointed out in their 1970 book ‘Future shock’ that many
people would be left behind by all these exponential changes. However, if it
takes us decades to figure out which apparently excellent ‘chameleon’ ideas are
best avoided, while the train is going faster and faster all the time, even AI
may not save us!
In fact, AI itself may be a chameleon technology, if we
believe warnings by Stephen Hawking [8] and Elon Musk [9]…
References:
1 1) a) A.Cozar et al PNAS2014 and b) https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/great-pacific-garbage-patch-plastic-pollution-oceans-environment-fish-a8269951.html
3 3) “The Limits to Growth” D.H.Meadows et al (A
Potomac Associates book, 1972)
4 4) S.Pimm et al Science 344 (2014) 987 “The
biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and
protection”
5 5) “The Sixth Extinction: an unnatural history”,
Elizabeth Kolbert
7) https://www.popsci.com/lockheed-martins-plan-to-set-up-mars-base-camp
