oppression?
There are people who would have us believe that our computers could destroy the planet – not by taking control of the nuclear arsenals or enslaving humanity, but by sapping our resources and literally polluting us to death. They may be right.
I came across some shocking estimates in a bulletin produced by a group called the Electronic Industry Good Neighbour Campaign. Apparently, the production of a single 15cm silicon wafer used for computer chips requires 96m3 of bulk gases, 0,66m3 of hazardous gases, 8 600 litres of de- ionized water, 9kg of chemicals and 285kWh of electrical power. The end result also yields 11kg of sodium hydroxide, 11 litres of waste water, and 3kg of miscellaneous hazardous waste.
While a few computer parts manufacturers are succumbing to pressure from environmentalists to phase out the use of hazardous materials, most of the industry is content with adding energy-saving features to our monitors and bright stickers announcing their existence.
The whole argument, in all its graphic detail, was presented to me while I sat on a panel at a computer conference in Austin, Texas, last year. One delegate explained how the “computer revolution” (her words) was really just a ploy by chemical companies to maintain their stranglehold over the world economy.
By advocating the use of computers, they create demand for the many expensive chemicals required for their production. Worse, the argument went, the community we computer lovers believe results from online interaction is no substitute for the real thing. It is limited to rich, white people and actually decreases our ability to conduct meaningful social work.
A Los Angeles Times columnist continued this tirade: the computer revolution, he explained, is just the latest version of a class war that has raged for centuries. Just as “old media” programmed the masses into submission, the new media, under the guise of interactivity, merely addicts people to technology. Our fetishism for better technology and faster modem speeds is not based on human need, but on corporate greed.
The problem with these arguments is that they don’t take into account that things can and do change. I believe that the advent of interactive technology marks a genuine shift in the ability of real people to gather true information, share it with one another, and make sense of the world around them.
If we careen mindlessly towards technological progress with no attention to its effects on the environment or labour, then the renaissance that computers might hold in store for us will be reduced to the nightmare these social activists envision.
But if, on the other hand, we stay conscious of what we’re doing with these machines, we stand a chance of using them to reduce environmental and social injustice rather than simply contributing to it. We owe it to ourselves to examine each new purchase for how it really stands to increase our productivity.
And we owe it to our planet to become more aware of the tremendous strain that computer manufacture puts on our natural resources, both in evaluating our purchases and in pressuring companies to adopt greener production methods.
But slowing down or reversing our drive towards an interactive future will only disable us from breaking the cycle of abuse that these well-meaning activists rightly fear. I insist that these machines are, indeed, different from the ones that came before them; but they’ll only live up to their potential if we prove different from those who came before us too. c Douglas Rushkoff
Read more Rushkoff on the eM&G website at