In the previous post I outlined how one of the most pressing problems of the day in 1899 had been the widespread accumulation of horse poop, but how that had been resolved by the adoption of a new technology – the automobile. This also highlighted another problem of technology in that a technology to resolve one big problem had created yet another side-effect of pollution that led to yet another need to adopt technology that alleviated even more problems. As a general rule, new technology has pollution side-effects but as newer technologies are developed the type and amount of pollution by comparison usually reduces. In the use of the automobile this believe it or not was the case, except that while millions of horse users created a whole pile of daily pollution problems. The automobile created less of a problem at that time. What made the automobile become complicit in ruining the current environment was the sheer numbers of automobiles that were developed and the continuing technology of the gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine. If we had good battery power technology with the fast adoption of the automobile, they would most likely have all been electric cars.
The point I am making is that technology is not a bad thing, but we have to not just adopt new technologies, but we also have to use wisdom in adopting technology that works for us with minimal side-effects and technology that dominates us with major side-effects. The new (or not so new) technologies for energy generation and transportation are now at a stage where they are now more preferable to the older technologies they need to replace. The new social problem we have is that we have corporate monopolies that are extremely resistant to relinquishing their hold on the marketplace using these older technologies despite the obvious detrimental side-effects. For example, an excuse that I always hear about renewable energy adoption is that the technology is not as ‘efficient’ as traditional energy (coal, oil and methane) technology. Without getting into yet another discussion about efficiency of all the technologies, I will use an example of how technology once adopted only becomes better.
Take the ubiquitous bicycle for example. When I was a kid, I rode a ride a bike as my main mains of mobility around my town. Now I ride for fun and exercise and occasionally to the stores. Like bikes all over the world my bike is a central crank pedal model connected to the rear wheel by a bike chain. One day when I was about four miles (6.5 kilometers) away from home, I was pedaling up a short steep hill when the chain broke. I realized that I did not have a chain repair tool with me. I was thinking that the walk home pushing the bike would take about an hour but I had a phone call to make in half an hour. Rather than simply putting the bike away behind some bushes and running home I simply lowered the seat until my feet were flat on the ground. Then sitting astride the bike, I simply pushed the bike along with my feet on the level and down-grades. I made it home using this technique in about 22 minutes in plenty of time to make my phone call. This in essence was the technique used by Karl Von Drais in 1817 when he invented the precursor of the modern bicycle – the Draisine protobicycle. It was two light carriage wheels on a light wooden frame with a seat and a steerable front wheel.
The great thing about the Draisine was that it didn’t require grooming or stables and was powered by the rider’s leg muscles, thus making it cheaper and more efficient in both time and effort for short distances along paths and roads than a horse. The Draisine was improved somewhat over the next few years, but the main innovative change in the 1860s was the placement of foot pedals on the front wheel hub that allowed the rider to push the bike along without feet touching the ground. While this innovation made the bike more efficient for longer journeys it still required a lot of leg muscle power. It was noticed that the rider had more mechanical advantage if the front wheel was larger than the back. This drove the next swift innovation around 1870 with the ‘High Wheel’ bike or ‘The Penny Farthing’ with its large front pedal wheel and small back wheel. The main drawback of this bike, however, was that it required some athletic dexterity to mount and ride and was dangerous if the rider had an uncontrolled fall from the pedaling position. The invention of the rubber tubular wheel on the wheel rim also improved the comfort and effectiveness of the bike. It was quickly recognized within another decade that the mechanical advantage needed to pedal the bike could also work using a large crank gear on the central hub of the bike frame connected to a smaller gear on the rear wheel – the model bicycle. If you look at the Fowler bike from 1886 you will not notice too much difference from a model racing bike, except for the quality of the materials used in the bike. Indeed, what makes a modern bicycle different from the Fowler is just the materials used to build the bike and unique gearing systems (derailleur gears) to increase efficiency with reduced leg effort. If you look at a modern mountain bike it can get you places even a horse will not go.
This example is just a way to show that technology once adopted only gets better. ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ I often hear and it is true for any technology. You only need to look at warfare and that is apparently all too true. All technology can be applied for good or not so good, and what we need is not only to use technology but to use wisdom in understanding where we draw lines in further development. With a bicycle, the technology is benign (which is why I used that example), but many other technologies have darker purposes or unexpected consequences we must consider. We must not shy away from developing new technologies, but we must always question that just because we can, should we? Technology made the modern world and it has the potential to make everyone’s life on the planet better, but we need to have serious discussions about the long-term and darker consequences of adopting technology willy-Nilly. Change is good, but let’s make sure that what we adopt keeps it good.
The secret of change is to focus all your energy not fighting the old but on building the new. Dan Millman
0 Comments