Logging Off

Techno-solutionism is the popular idea that technology can fix our problems, and it’s the ideology responsible for much of the cultish hype we see around emerging technologies today, be it artificial intelligence or virtual reality. But what about when technology is fuelling or even creating the very problems preventing societal progress? In our increasingly digital world, we have developed a reluctance to accept that this is a possibility, let alone a reality. Looking at the world through this lens clouds our judgement and prevents us from progressing towards a better future for all. This is why the tech industry has for too long been treated as exceptional from the legislation that can keep us safe, because to regulate the digital world is falsely misunderstood as being anti-progress or anti-innovation.

The contentification of our entire lives has meant that organic and spontaneous conversation and a lack of control over real-life scenarios can become anxiety-inducing experiences instead of being accepted as just part of human nature. I often get invited to PR events and book launches with people I’ve interacted with for years online, but the anxiety I get about how I’ll be perceived compared to how I am online is sometimes enough to put me off altogether. The false sense of security our curated digital profiles give us simultaneously makes us feel discomfort in completely natural and human situations. I do feel that this plays a part in the rising rates of anxiety that younger people are facing since the rise of social media use and smartphone ownership.

For centuries, science and technology have been heralded as superior to other types of knowledge. This is why we equate technology to objectivity, to truth. But we must understand that technology is human by its very nature of being created by us, so it is more of a mirror than a future. Techno-solutionism only benefits those who profit from the technification of every aspect of our lives. As writer P.E. Moskowitz said: ‘We don’t need parks, libraries, beautiful architecture and public transit if we can be convinced to conduct our lives in a virtual fashion. This saves governments from needing to invest in the real-world . . . it acts as an enabler of austerity politics.’²

At the heart of so much tech optimism in our times and throughout history is the argument that tech will make our lives more efficient and productive. But is this what we need in these times? When increased efficiency has a negative impact on our health, our relationships and our collective wellbeing, perhaps the sacrifice is too great. Perhaps convenience is not good for us. I believe we should aim for what IEET (Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) calls ‘technoprogressive’ orientation, which is a framework for how tech can be used for our collective goals and happiness. Digital technology needs to be something we can choose to embrace and immerse ourselves in or let go of completely at our leisure. Agency is fundamental to our digital future. We ought to be able to have boundaries with our digital tools, the same way we might with a job, a relationship, a hobby or where we live. But right now digital is often the default. Slowing down and pausing to consider whether these technologies are beneficial, productive or empowering before we adopt them, is the opposite of what tech leaders want, but it’s what we collectively need. Slowing down is fundamental to a degrowth agenda, which recognises the harms that endless consumption is having.