Who were you when the glue came undone?
Reflecting on ‘Learning to Die in the Anthropocene’ through the 4th Industrial Revolution looking glass.
Roy Scranton predicted the end of civilization, and the need for new ways of thinking about and telling the story of humanity in 2015. By the spring of 2016 I was in an English Lit. senior capstone course called Tragic Ecologies. We were tasked with understanding humanity as tragedy or comedy in a literary sense. Tragedies end with the hero (hero being humanity in this context) realizing their folly, but too late to save themselves from destruction. Comedies on the other hand may have a bit of drama, but the hero never dies. Which do you think we look more like in 2019?
“The problem is that the problem is us.” — Roy Scranton
The main tension I see between our new found super cool awesome super duper 4th industrial revolution and Scranton’s work is the story of who we are as human beings. The 4th IR is described as moving away from simple digitization, and towards interconnectivity of the physical, digital, and biological. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing by any means and I could foresee ways in which it would drive the “letting go of this particular way of life and it’s ideas of identity, freedom, success, and progress” that Scranton urges, but is that the case?
The International Economic Forum published their thoughts regarding the impact of the 4th IR:
Like the revolutions that preceded it, the Fourth Industrial Revolution has the potential to raise global income levels and improve the quality of life for populations around the world. To date, those who have gained the most from it have been consumers able to afford and access the digital world; technology has made possible new products and services that increase the efficiency and pleasure of our personal lives. Ordering a cab, booking a flight, buying a product, making a payment, listening to music, watching a film, or playing a game — any of these can now be done remotely.
Klaus Schwab has about a thousand words on the subject, and not once does he nor his editors deem it necessary to speak about the global catastrophe hanging over all of our heads. Instead they believe it’s of incredible importance to note the enhancement of personal pleasure, and marvel at it.
Interestingly enough Scranton actually began anticipating the societal cost of interconnectedness at the time of publication. He states, “the global information and communications ecosystem that they[we] were plugged into was[is now] estimated to use about 10 percent of the world’s electricity.” One can only assume this number as risen as the very value proposition of the 4th IR is additional connectivity. However, I think an interesting to get a granular view of this issue would be examining the poster child for the 4th IR, Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has been chastised by environmental groups for its absurd energy requirements needed for mining, yet it persists as an activity for those moving towards the future. The Chinese are actually responsible for a majority of bitcoin mining, and enjoy an unhealthy amount of energy (60%) sourced from coal. Therefore at least a quarter of the massive energy needed to mine bitcoin is being derived from one of the worst CO2 emitting energy sources available. Why then do we continue to do it? According to Bitcoin Magazine:
In the digital age, the ideal brand new currency should have at least these three characteristics:
1. It should be free from the control of any authority so that it cannot be manipulated and printed at will (and devalued), and nobody can tell anyone what they can and cannot use it for.
2. The currency should be borderless, so that it can be easily exchanged across any location with anyone.
3. It should be apolitical, so as to not favor a specific system or group of people. In a nutshell, these (among many others) are the characteristics of bitcoin, which looks like an appealing alternative to any fiat-based monetary system.
In short, unbiased, untethered, connectedness are the bitcoin promise which sounds lovely. Why then must we hurry and force ourselves to use harmful methods of energy production like coal? Could it be the search for profits and domination in this digital currency utopia? How about the value dollar for dollar of energy use? Certainly the energy not sourced from coal could be put to better use and we can bypass any need for Bitcoin.
Not according to the Cato Institute which reports that expending energy to mine bitcoin is no more or less socially useful than energy expended to run a hospital. Provocative at best, and heinous at worst.
On the other end of the spectrum we have those who would respond to our impending doom with the approach recommended by Scranton. The Dark Mountain Manifesto provides a new way of thinking about life in general, and they did once have a small meeting of the minds. Their 8 principles of uncivilization can be found in that link, but for the lazy it ends like this:
The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us.
Beautiful, but albeit somewhat ineffective much like the largest climate change march ever that Scranton participated in, and described as “no matter how many people protest it doesn’t matter because they play no part in the growth of power the only consume.”
So let us return to the 4th IR where salvation certainly lies and explore another specific tactic, but this time on the energy conservation rather than consumption side. Carbon capture and storage. Scranton makes a point of ridiculing this tactic as an effete dream. At his writing:
The IEAs 2009 CCS roadmap called for 100 CCS projects to be developed by 2020, but as of 2013 4 had been completed.
According to a report from the IEA in 2017, SEVENTEEN projects had been completed and made fully operational. Combined these 17 projects could capture 30mT of carbon, but for some reason unbeknown or at least not mentioned these projects only captured 9mT of carbon the previous year. Essentially very little progress as been made and despite all of the rapid incredible advancement the 4th IR has brought us, according to Schwab, we are still only able to achieve 30% efficiency and meet 20% of the goals we set as a species. Truly marvelous.
If all of these tensions show anything it is that we are divided. Schwab admits the 4th IR with all of its AI and Big Data will indeed worsen the income inequality globally. The winners he claims will be those with marketable skills and losers will be those needing to fill commoditized positions. Our technologists fail to agree on the value and cost of bitcoin much like any other contentious piece of tech, and the rest of us are left standing by…waiting. Scranton’s thoughts and beliefs are as needed today as they were in 2015, but unfortunately we struggle to wrap our minds around the real challenges we face as a species. Hint: they are not how we can more easily watch a film. If you don’t want to take my word for it please take a look at what the rich are doing because it appears as if they are ready for collapse (Rushkoff is an amazing writer). Will the rest of us be ready? Hell, will they be ready?
Maybe Hagakure Yamamoto is right “meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.”
