- Email: [email protected]
Subtle world: Beyond sustainability, beyond information
ARTICLE IN PRESS FUTURES Futures 39 (2007) 657–668 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Subtle world: Beyond sustainability, beyond information Peter R. Mulvihilla,, Matthew J. Milanb a
Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ont., Canada M3J 1P3 b Design Strategist, Delight Inc., Toronto, Canada Available online 22 December 2006
Abstract A number of authors have examined the relationship between sustainability and information technology, most acknowledging that the connection is complex and problematic. In this essay, we revisit aspects of the debate and explore the relationship between sustainability and information at a fundamental level. We argue that the connection should be approached with caution and skepticism since it does little to address or edify the challenges of the ecological crisis. We conclude by exploring the shapes of a different, and hopefully more productive, kind of discourse. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Debates around sustainability and information technology have produced vast but mostly separate streams of literature. The respective literature pertaining to each has tended to treat the other more as a sub-theme than a central concern. A complex and profound relationship between the two might be assumed and has been the subject of some exploration (for example: [1–5]). While on the surface the link may appear to be an intriguing prospect, it will not necessarily be fruitful, and it may obscure more important questions. In this essay we discuss aspects of the debate around sustainability and information technology (and, more generally, information). We begin by considering sustainability and information separately, as parallel streams of thought and activity, and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 736 2100x22634; fax: +1 416 736 5679.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.R. Mulvihill). 0016-3287/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS 658
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
then discuss their relationship and its implications. We conclude by exploring the shapes of a different, and hopefully more productive, kind of discourse. 2. Questioning sustainability For two decades, sustainability (along with its main variant, sustainable development)1 has reigned as the popular term to frame discussion around environmental issues, or, more precisely, interrelationships among social, ecological and economic challenges. Countless conferences, articles, reports and debates have revolved around the theme of sustainability, quite often ending in fruitless attempts to define, implement and measure it. As a term, sustainability continues to have currency, but it remains controversial, its ultimate usefulness questioned by many. Many use it reluctantly, lamenting the lack of better terms to frame discussion. There is no shortage of more or less useful environmental terms— green, eco-efficiency, footprint, dematerialization, for example—but none currently command as much attention as sustainability, and none appear to be as ambitious and comprehensive. Unquestionably, the introduction and proliferation of the term has had a profound impact on the broad and complex discourse surrounding environment and development or the ecological crisis. Sustainability has expanded the problem definition and scope of discussion to include, more explicitly, economic and social considerations along with ecological concerns. It has made win-win—the reconciliation of seemingly competing forces—appear more plausible.2 It has been partly successful in shifting the tone of environmentalism from crisis to opportunity. It has stimulated endless debate, though often less about substantial matters and more about definitional issues. Unresolved questions of fundamental importance remain. What does sustainability mean? What does it involve and imply? Is it possible to achieve? While these questions are not unimportant, in this essay we limit our discussion to the tendencies of sustainability as a term. In other words, our focus is not on sustainability itself, but on its role in discourses. 2.1. Sustainability’s unproductive controversies Of the potentially numerous problems with the term sustainability, a few are particularly important to highlight. First, it is at best a paradoxical prospect, fraught with tensions and contradictions. It remains plagued by definitional issues and controversies. Defined too generally, it lacks tangible meaning. As it gathers specificity, it tends to become divisive. Competing versions—shallower, deeper, weaker, stronger—add necessary texture to the discourse [7] but generate confusion and inhibit the accessibility of the term.3 In practice, the pursuit of sustainability appears to be largely about balance—balancing a myriad of processes and activities extending through time. The ultimate breadth of its appeal is therefore questionable. To cultures more drawn to novelty, discovery, growth and 1
Since we argue that these terms are problematic and part of the problem lies in their over-use, we will not offer, as is usual, their popular definitions. 2 Hughes and Johnstone [6, p. 813], for example, discuss the prospect of a ‘‘‘triple-win’ opportunity for growth, greater equity and resource-efficiency’’. 3 Gilg et al [8, p. 481] note, as do many others, that ‘‘Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people.’’ Likewise, the tag of sustainability can be applied to virtually anything.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
659
conquest, the pursuit of balance may never generate broad enthusiasm or become a galvanizing goal. Further clouding matters, sustainability is used both literally and metaphorically, but the difference is not always clear. To some it is an urgent and achievable imperative to be taken quite literally, while to others it is a compass pointing to a distant goal to be achieved many generations from now, if ever. The relationship between sustainability and relativity is also problematic. Although many would concede that truly sustainable societies are largely beyond our reach in the shorter term, the pursuit of ‘‘relatively sustainable’’ societies has a less compelling ring. Sustainability lends itself more readily to absolute distinctions: either something is sustainable, or not. In a world full of relativity, sustainability is awkward as a unifying goal. Next, there are some troubling contradictions. Although the achievement of ‘‘strong sustainability’’ would appear to necessitate dramatic reductions in resource intensive human activities, there is still little evidence of this actually occurring to a significant enough extent. Ironically, many plans and strategies that claim to be based on principles of sustainability involve unsustainable interventions of all kinds—for example new (albeit greener) buildings, new vehicles or new infrastructure. Even restoration activities are often resource intensive. Relatively few sustainability strategies assume no new human interventions or activities of some kind, even if they make justifiable claims of incremental dematerialization. Even the most sincere pursuit of sustainability can contribute to the problem rather than address it.4 It may be difficult to imagine radically dematerialized or non-material human activity, but deep sustainability, by definition, seems to require it urgently. In this context, it is difficult to blame those who consider sustainability to be literally impossible in the foreseeable future. It is at best a long term stretch goal—a summit—but its sheer ambition may be a net handicap, discouraging many who might otherwise be inspired by goals that they consider to be more achievable, even on long, inter-generational timeframes. 2.2. An uninspiring abstraction Along with some of these more fundamental problems, sustainability strikes many as an oddly clinical term. It can be engaging to scientists—indeed, it is essentially a scientific term—but it is generally uninspiring and inaccessible. Fricker argues the opposite, stating that sustainability is ‘‘ya dynamic, a state of collective grace that resonates with something deep within us’’ [9]. He argues that sustainability resonates, even if we have a poor understanding of what it is, and even if it defies objective interpretation. Fricker is not alone in this hopeful sentiment, but sustainability remains an abstraction to many. Other terms may be equally abstract—for example, diversity, equity, uncertainty or complexity—but even these terms are arguably more compelling because people can sense them in aspects of their everyday lives. Sustainability becomes more compelling when associated with a process or activity—sustainable energy or transportation, for example— but it is just as often used as a stand-alone term and therefore de-contextualized. As a stand-alone term, it pales in comparison to more compelling terms such as, for example, peace or health. 4
Researchers have noted a ‘‘rebound effect’’ in which supposedly greener technologies can sometimes in practice cause further excessive economic growth (for example, [3, p. 485]).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 660
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
Even those who are strongly committed to sustainability as a vision struggle to find its appropriate levels of meaning and application. Some argue that sustainability is most accessible and compelling when considered at smaller-scale levels and issues in which individuals have a strong personal stake. Others argue that it has more relevance at largerscale or system levels, where more complex interactions unfold. In order for it to be meaningful at micro, macro, system, community, regional and global levels, sustainability would need to be an incredibly powerful and agile concept. In practice, however, its seemingly universal applicability dilutes its meaning and power. Much of the intrigue and attractiveness of sustainability frameworks and strategies rests on their claims to be integrative and reconciling. Sustainability claims to offer a more holistic way to consider and resolve issues. In practice, this integrative potential has been only partly realized, for several reasons. First, fragmented approaches to management, planning and governance are tenacious, and many people tend to be strongly attached to single issues or small-picture concerns.5 Second, in many instances the tradeoffs involved in environmental and development issues appear to be quite evident, making win-win seem unlikely if not impossible, at least in the shorter-term. Third, examining issues holistically may introduce unmanageable complexity. The pursuit of sustainability is conducive to substantial complexity, but complexity itself tends to be historically unsustainable.6 As Tainter [11] notes, with every advance in science the difficulty of the task is increased. It seems clear that the same applies to sustainability—it tends to become more difficult as it is pursued, revealing increasingly wicked problems. Finally, in some cases people may find sustainability a useful term that captures part of the challenge—say, the ecological or economic dimensions—but less useful in describing other parts, such as the social and cultural aspects. They might find ‘‘social well being’’ to be more meaningful, but they may still have to contend with sustainability as the overarching (if not overbearing) term. 2.3. Sustainability’s waning influence For the most part, despite its win-win tone and emphasis on opportunities, sustainability is strongly linked to the crisis-driven messages of environmentalism. The processes through which sustainability has been advocated have been characterized by all the same elements as earlier waves of environmentalism: ideology, activism, alarmism, disasters, crises, disputed facts, contentious indicators and doomsday scenarios. (Or, just as unsubtly, it has been employed as an unconvincing catchword in public policy initiatives or for marketing purposes in the private sector.) While there is substantial agreement that the risks and problems driving environmentalism are real enough, there are limits to how much a crisisdriven message can continue to motivate people. The message is inspiring and compelling to some, but simply too daunting and negative to others. What was intended to be a galvanizing, integrating new vision instead leaves many in despair. Confronted by the accelerated ecological damage of the last two centuries, along with its ominous implications, current generations are burdened heavily by past, present and future. Few 5
Hajer [10] discussed paradoxes of the environment and sustainable development discourse, noting that agreement and coalitions can be shaky. Indeed, the more deeply the prospect sustainability is explored, the more contentious it usually becomes. 6 Tainter [11, p. 401], citing several other scholars, makes an argument concerning the diminishing returns of confronting complexity. Like the pursuit of sustainability, it tends to become more difficult as it unfolds, quickly escalating to a point of unmanageability.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
661
would argue against the general intent of sustainability advocates, but the vision of sustainable societies feels like a long-term prospect, with relatively little progress on the near horizon and a great deal more crisis management in the foreseeable future. In this context, it is difficult to blame pessimists who view the prospect of sustainability with skepticism and disengagement. To summarize, sustainability leaves many people uninspired, it is plagued by ongoing confusion, and many believe that it has serious theoretical and practical shortcomings. It may be a transitional term rather than a lasting, long-term framework for planning, strategy, research and action. Its contribution has been important and far-reaching, but its limitations necessitate the continued search for better terms and frameworks. 3. Information and sustainability Even the most cursory consideration of the nature and vast role of information reveals a number of significant problems and paradoxes.7 But first, it can be deceptively difficult and problematic to even define the term; information can be taken to mean almost anything— data, knowledge, communication or media. There are important differences between mere information and knowledge, but these distinctions are blurred increasingly as the ‘‘information society’’ or ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ become normalized but not necessarily understood. Largely proprietary and technology-driven, the information industry creates unprecedented opportunities but also some disquieting vagaries, and complicates even a basic understanding of information, its uses and tendencies. Even if information and its nature can be understood, it remains a problematic phenomenon. Elegant but amorphous, timely but ephemeral, information can be profound or meaningless. We can interpret, analyze, transform, collect and manipulate it endlessly. Information is infinite, as are the options to deal with it, even if many of them are pointless. It is inherently incomplete—there is never quite enough of it, perpetuating an endless quest for more. Even the considerable information supply of the internet tends to only heighten our awareness of gaps and vacuums. The information world is rich in potential but much of it is perpetually unrealized. 3.1. Information society? The idea of the information society has wide currency, even though its nature and benefits are contentious. Some enthusiasts claim that information and communication technologies will be instrumental in addressing a range of social, ecological and economic problems, although exactly how these solutions will unfold is seldom clear.8 While the concept of what an information society actually entails is a topic of debate, it is widely 7 Tsoukas, for example, offers a compelling discussion of the ‘‘temptations and paradoxes of the information society’’, arguing, among other points, that more information may lead to less understanding, and that a variety of problems may prevent the promises of the information society from being realized [5]. 8 Inayatullah [12] and Galtung [13] offer, respectively, critiques of the information era or information society. Despite a substantial body of critical literature on the information society, cyber-enthusiasm is an enduring force. Berkout and Hertin [1, p. 903] argue for ‘‘the need to move beyond the dichotomy between pessimism and optimism’’ in the information and communication technology debate, but acknowledge that the relationship between these technologies and the environment is ‘‘complex, interdependent, deeply uncertain and scaledependent’’.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 662
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
equated with increased knowledge and sophistication. An information-based economy and globalization are seen by some as the centerpieces of a new, more advanced order. Whether anyone is actually living in an information society at present is debatable. The gap between wealth and living standards varies widely among countries, and the level of technology— especially information and communication technology—is often wider still. A truer ‘‘information society’’ would provide the tools to manage and leverage information of all types by the whole of a society. This suggests accessible, networked, and ubiquitous technologies that help individuals analyze and understand significant amounts of information on a daily basis—a vision that for the most part remains far beyond our individual and collective grasp. 3.2. Information sustainability? On the surface, it might seem logical to link the concepts of sustainability and information in various ways,9 and to assume that the relationship is a profound one. Both of these assumptions are questionable. First, let us consider the general question of ‘‘information sustainability’’ and its implications. Of all things, information systems should be relatively easy to sustain, because they are largely and increasingly high technology-based. They are far less complex than, for example, economic, social and ecological systems. And yet, the sustainability of information and its systems is in serious question. Researchers report that over 800 MB of information is produced every year for each person on the planet, amounting to an estimated 5 exabytes of new information created every year [14]. The format and content of information seem to be increasingly mono-cultural, as much of the new information is produced in purely digital format by the technologically dominant West. This ensures that the issue of information sustainability will continue to preoccupy many, whether or not it is ultimately a useful question. Even if, as seems unlikely, it could be demonstrated that information systems and industries were sustainable, other important issues would remain unresolved—problems relating to security and privacy, for example. More fundamentally, there is little, if any, clear evidence that information technology, with its many problematic tendencies, is or will become a net asset that will help improve societies. It can just as easily be argued that it is little more than a grand distraction. 3.3. Information waste and decay When considering the characteristic problems of the world of information technology, terms other than sustainability appear to be apropos. Koski, for example, uses the more accessible and meaningful term ‘‘infoglut’’ in discussing knowledge productivity [15]. The concept of information sustainability is more difficult to visualize, and it tends to be misleading, because other issues such as format and presentation may be more problematic than sheer volumes of information. Tsoukas suggests that ‘‘in the information society, the 9 Jokinen et al. [3] argued the opposite, up to a point, contending that the information society and sustainable development discourses were competing and used as ‘‘mutually exclusive notions’’. And yet, their work and that of others exemplify a small but significant literature that examines the connection. Heinonen et al. [2] also explore it and argue that the more positive aspects of the information society can contribute to ecologically sustainable development.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
663
abundance of information tends to overshadow the phenomena to which information refers’’ [5, p. 832]. Since it appears to be easy to confuse and conflate information issues, transparent language is all the more necessary. While information sustainability may lack precise meaning, there are significant questions of efficiency, waste and resource use in information management. The rapid rate of innovation and acceptance in most information environments has created an expectation of ongoing, rapid change. Even significant downturns in the economics of the technology industry in the earlier part of this decade did little to slow the introduction of new technologies and the forced obsolescence of old ones. Instead of evolving as organizations evolve, web-based environments must be abandoned, either partially or wholly, and rebuilt from scratch or from the broken pieces of its parent in order to keep up with the rapid organizational change of contemporary companies, agencies and organizations. With these wasteful practices, the net contribution of the informationbased economy to dematerialization is far from clear—if, indeed, that is a realistic prospect at all. There are other, built-in wasteful tendencies. The presentation of information provides a type of implicit metadata that seeks to contextualize the information itself. With the objectification of information into discrete elements of seemingly heterogeneous databases and information warehouses, the output or presentation of information is now much less likely to provide an accurate representation of its original context. Indeed, the presented context or output is more likely to represent an agenda or ideology that has no direct or true relationship with the original information context. Regardless of the volume of information that can be provided, the information itself may be of limited value due to the inaccuracies introduced by erroneous re-contextualization. Instead of information pollution, we have information decay, where the value of the information is greatly weakened by the process of stripping out and reintroducing context. Extensive information decay seems increasingly inevitable, an unintended outcome of information technology.10 For one thing, this suggests that the world of information is increasingly de-contextualized. But, more importantly, this type of problem simply exemplifies the dreariness of the putative information society, and obscures more significant issues. 3.4. Convergence of environments? The last 50 years have seen a continued movement towards increasing interaction in information environments. Over the last 10 years, the changes have been dramatic and unsettling, bringing issues of privacy, digital and personal rights, and a fear of being overwhelmed by over-information. This unease is further compounded by the as yet unseen but rapidly approaching transition from screen-based interaction with information environments to ubiquitous computing. Ubiquitous computing, or the idea of everything human-made having a computer in it, is rapidly approaching a point where it becomes an integral part of our lives: wireless networks, multifunction cell phones, personal GPS units, RFID tags and sensor-web technology are all reaching a stage where they will be able to communicate with each other in real time. This will create a rapid process of convergence, 10
Cory Doctorow uses the term ‘‘metacrap’’ in reference to the problem of too much metadata added to information. http://www.well.com/doctorow/metacrap.htm.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 664
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
where the greater information environment and other environments could merge to become a seamless experience for humans. Already, urban planning efforts in some cities have become focused on specifically planning for ‘‘ubicomp’’. While top-down approaches to implementing ubicomp are unproven, this highlights the speed at which societies are moving towards this point of environmental convergence. Ubicomp implies a change in the role of computing, which becomes ‘‘ambient social infrastructure’’ [16]. As is the case with so many aspects of the information society, the social and environmental effects of this change are unclear and difficult if not impossible to predict. As this type of change unfolds, the boundaries between physical space and information space will continue to blur. This convergence of the virtual and the natural and built could have positive outcomes, or it could combine the best and worst elements of physical and information environments. In imagining alternatives to these types of processes and outcomes, new frameworks and critiques are needed. The concept of ‘‘information ecology’’ holds some promise as a way to rethink information and its context. Nardi and O’Day define it as: ‘‘ya system of people, practices, values, and technologies in a particular environment’’ [17, pp. 49–58]. Information ecology argues that the focus should not be on the technology itself, but on the human processes that are supported by the technology. This is but one example of the more proactive and critical sort of discourse that is needed to address the implications of the information society experiments. 3.5. A house of mirrors If sustainability and information are problematic terms separately, together they form a house of mirrors, leading to circular, self-referential questions. Does information need to be sustainable, and what if it does? How much does ecological sustainability depend on information? If knowledge gaps are barriers to the pursuit of sustainability, is more information the answer? Is information overload a primary cause of ecological unsustainability? Are information-intensive solutions sustainable? Are information technologies a net benefit in terms of ‘‘dealing with complexity’’, or do they add complexity and perpetuate wicked problems? Is the information economy a step toward ecological sustainability, or simply a diversion? And so on. When we consider sustainability and information together, we fall into a trap of synergistic confusion. In the fog of sustainability, the information society sheds little light, and introduces its own dark alleys. 4. Subtle world 4.1. Subtle and nuanced discourse As argued earlier, the confusion surrounding sustainability has reached the stage where it is unproductive and unedifying. The basic message of sustainability is well enough conceived; it stresses, among other things, the ecological context of life, its many interconnections and the limits to over-exploitation of resources. But the vagueness of the term makes it overly susceptible to misappropriation, abuse and irrelevance. Even at best, its value in engaging broad dialogue is limited. Many people, although not necessarily discouraged by sustainability messages, are largely unmoved by them and are generally
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
665
disinclined towards social movements, ideology or prescriptive solutions. They may prefer to entertain a number of different problem definitions, options and strategies, and may find voluntary paths more palatable than an imposed sustainability imperative. Three decades of experimentation with environmental policy provides considerable evidence that many of its objectives—eco-efficiency, reduced consumption, better planning, etc.—are largely voluntary in nature. The factors that motivate people vary substantially, and this inherent diversity and complexity of motivations demands an equally diverse and nuanced approach to stimulating change. If the sustainability discourse, clouded by the vagaries of the information society, is at best a transitional phase (or, worse, a conceptual dead end), it appears that a key lesson is the need for a subtler exploration of our challenges. In striving for convergence, we have lost meaning and specificity. The overuse of generic terms has had a channeling effect, leading debate along narrow lines and ultimately limiting it. Instead of a single, overarching term like sustainability, we need a range of terms, a more robust collection, with more complexity, nuance, unpredictability and creativity. The more subtle world beyond sustainability is one in which a richer language and a broader array of terms and frameworks are used. Partly because of its relatively brief history, the environmental movement and its related debates have yet to be characterized by a sufficient richness of imagination and language. Processes of change are subtle and complex, and must be supported and reflected by artful terms. The vocabulary of more mature realms and sectors is much richer than the primarily scientific language of sustainability, and the implications should not be underestimated. In a more subtle language lurk ideas and insights that can catalyze change. The behavioral, cultural and institutional changes required to address the ecological crisis are, once again, ultimately voluntary in nature. They are more likely to result from a subtle, edifying discourse than from the blunt language of sustainability or from over-information. 4.2. Creative and diverse engagement As argued earlier, sustainability does not capture adequately the essence and complexity of the ecological crisis in its various dimensions. Although some people are sufficiently intrigued by the challenges implied by sustainability, many others remain only tangentially or conditionally engaged by it. Not surprisingly, when links between sustainability challenges and more creative and spiritual matters are made, engagement tends to increase. Issues that bridge personal, creative, spiritual and ecological dimensions are compelling, because the interrelationships are profound. The sustainability discourse has attempted to bridge ecological, economic and social concerns, but it needs to be more nuanced and extend further into other relevant dimensions. In the sustainability discourse, the importance of diversity as a complementary objective is often recognized. A strong case can be made for making diversity a more overarching goal; if we maintained and enhanced the diversity of cultural and biotic systems, many ecological challenges would be addressed. This goes beyond mere terminological significance due to, as argued earlier, the far-reaching influence of language in social discourse. Diversity, in its many forms, can be a subtle, intriguing goal, implying an almost infinite range of possibilities and usually desirable ecological and social conditions. Like all terms or frameworks, it has limitations, but its potential once again illustrates the desirability of looking beyond sustainability.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 666
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
4.3. Information, narratives and behavior change When information fulfills its potential and supports learning, it can make substantial contributions to behavior change, leading to measurable improvements in environmental performance at different levels. It is clear that some behavior changes have occurred to date at personal, institutional and societal levels, bringing, in some cases, reduced consumption, increased recycling and enhanced eco-efficiencies. Over the course of decades, a rich and varied discourse has cultivated and disseminated the information that has inspired these changes, ranging from arts to sciences, experiential learning, community initiatives, science fiction, children’s stories, utopian or dystopian narratives, poetry, scenarios, journalism, and beyond, drawing from virtually every discipline and extending into every medium. The environmental movement can be thought of as a meta-narrative or set of alternative narratives,11 inspiring changes over time, even if unevenly and incrementally. That this has happened, despite the brief history of the contemporary environmental movement and its evolving but still limited language, owes much to a prevailing spirit of openness, experimentation and improvisation—an urge and tendency to preserve a measure of unpredictability and creativity in the discourse. With this characteristic diversity of approaches, the discourse will continue to be fruitful, especially if overarching terms and frameworks do not constrain it. A continuing dialogue in which different futures are imagined and debated will inspire further learning and behavior change. Not all of this exploration needs to refer to sustainability, nor does it need to be translated into forms of information that conform to sustainability measures, indicators and reports. Indeed, the strength of the discourse is that it is much too diverse to be channeled in any single direction and it unfolds across many communities, some quite unrelated. This variety is critical; as history shows, futures can emerge from the least expected places. 4.4. Subtle applications for information technology As argued, there is a misplaced overconfidence in the information society path as a source of solutions. Conceptualizing and analyzing the challenges of the ecological crisis requires clear thinking, uncomplicated by diversions into parallel areas like information technology and its debates. Given the problems associated, respectively, with sustainability and information, focusing on their links is unlikely to be fruitful. Nevertheless, information and communication technology has spawned a number of interesting applications and spin-offs, and it is possible to imagine a culture emerging that is more sophisticated. Wikis, blogs and social software technologies that focus on bottom-up, nonexpert driven systems like folksonomies are beginning to show that they can support many subtle and sophisticated uses of information systems. 5. Conclusion The popularization of the term sustainability has had a profound and far-reaching impact on discourse, but its influence is waning. The quest for a term with universal 11 There is a rich literature exploring various aspects of this, including, for example, Foucault on learning and scholarship [18]; Herman on narrative theory and cognitive science [19]; Ricoeur on ‘‘time and narrative’’ [20]; White on historiography [21]; and Cronon, on narratives and environmentalism [22].
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
667
meaning and resonance has in practice inhibited diversity, cultural relativity and subtlety. If future discourses are to be more productive, a new terminology and discourse needs to emerge, unclouded by the many diversions of information technology and the quest for the information society. A more subtle discourse will lead to more subtle development— perhaps not the rapid revolution hoped for by sustainability visionaries, but a very promising and welcome shift. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. References [1] F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies and the environment, Futures 36 (8) (2004) 903–920. [2] S. Heinonen, P. Jokinen, J. Kaivo-oja, The ecological transparency of the information society, Futures 33 (2001) 319–337. [3] P. Jokinen, P. Malaska, J. Kaivo-oja, The environment in an ‘Information Society’: a transition stage towards more sustainable development?, Futures 30 (6) (1998) 485–498. [4] J. Park, N. Roome (Eds.), The Ecology of the New Economy: Sustainable Transformation of Global Information, Communication, and Electronics Industries, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 2002. [5] H. Tsoukas, The tyranny of light: the temptations and paradoxes of the information society, Futures 29 (9) (1997) 827–843. [6] B.B. Hughes, P.D. Johnston, Sustainable futures: policies for global development, Futures 37 (2005) 813–831. [7] Ayres, et al., Strong vs. weak sustainability, Environmental Ethics 23 (2) (Summer 2001). [8] A. Gilg, S. Barr, N. Ford, Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer, Futures 37 (2005) 481–504. [9] A. Fricker, Measuring up to sustainability, Futures 30 (4) (1998) 367–375. [10] M.A. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford University Press, Guildford, 1995. [11] J.A. Tainter, Sustainability of complex societies, Futures 27 (4) (1995) 397–407. [12] S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing the information era, Futures 30 (2/3) (1998) 235–247. [13] J. Gatlung, Information, communication and their future in post modernity, Futures 30 (1998) 219–221. [14] HowMuchInformation. 2003. Available from: /http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/ how-much-info/summary.htmlS [15] J.T. Koski, Reflections on information glut and other issues in knowledge productivity, Futures 33 (2001) 483–495. [16] P. Morville, Ambient Findability: What We Find Changes Who We Become, O’Reilly Media, Sebastepol, US, 2005. [17] B.A. Nardi, V.L. O’Day, Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. [18] M. Foucault, The Archaeology of knowledge (Translated from the French by A.M. Sheridan Smith), Pantheon Books, New York, 1972. [19] D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 2003. [20] P. Ricoeur, in: P. Rincoeur (Ed.), Time and Narrative, vol. 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer). [21] H.V. White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1987. [22] W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1996.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 668
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
Further reading [23] Wikipededia, Creation of the Internet, Available from: /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_societyS [24] E.J. Wilson III, Inventing the global information future, Futures 30 (1) (1998) 23–42.
Subtle world: Beyond sustainability, beyond information Peter R. Mulvihilla,, Matthew J. Milanb a
Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ont., Canada M3J 1P3 b Design Strategist, Delight Inc., Toronto, Canada Available online 22 December 2006
Abstract A number of authors have examined the relationship between sustainability and information technology, most acknowledging that the connection is complex and problematic. In this essay, we revisit aspects of the debate and explore the relationship between sustainability and information at a fundamental level. We argue that the connection should be approached with caution and skepticism since it does little to address or edify the challenges of the ecological crisis. We conclude by exploring the shapes of a different, and hopefully more productive, kind of discourse. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Debates around sustainability and information technology have produced vast but mostly separate streams of literature. The respective literature pertaining to each has tended to treat the other more as a sub-theme than a central concern. A complex and profound relationship between the two might be assumed and has been the subject of some exploration (for example: [1–5]). While on the surface the link may appear to be an intriguing prospect, it will not necessarily be fruitful, and it may obscure more important questions. In this essay we discuss aspects of the debate around sustainability and information technology (and, more generally, information). We begin by considering sustainability and information separately, as parallel streams of thought and activity, and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 736 2100x22634; fax: +1 416 736 5679.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.R. Mulvihill). 0016-3287/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS 658
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
then discuss their relationship and its implications. We conclude by exploring the shapes of a different, and hopefully more productive, kind of discourse. 2. Questioning sustainability For two decades, sustainability (along with its main variant, sustainable development)1 has reigned as the popular term to frame discussion around environmental issues, or, more precisely, interrelationships among social, ecological and economic challenges. Countless conferences, articles, reports and debates have revolved around the theme of sustainability, quite often ending in fruitless attempts to define, implement and measure it. As a term, sustainability continues to have currency, but it remains controversial, its ultimate usefulness questioned by many. Many use it reluctantly, lamenting the lack of better terms to frame discussion. There is no shortage of more or less useful environmental terms— green, eco-efficiency, footprint, dematerialization, for example—but none currently command as much attention as sustainability, and none appear to be as ambitious and comprehensive. Unquestionably, the introduction and proliferation of the term has had a profound impact on the broad and complex discourse surrounding environment and development or the ecological crisis. Sustainability has expanded the problem definition and scope of discussion to include, more explicitly, economic and social considerations along with ecological concerns. It has made win-win—the reconciliation of seemingly competing forces—appear more plausible.2 It has been partly successful in shifting the tone of environmentalism from crisis to opportunity. It has stimulated endless debate, though often less about substantial matters and more about definitional issues. Unresolved questions of fundamental importance remain. What does sustainability mean? What does it involve and imply? Is it possible to achieve? While these questions are not unimportant, in this essay we limit our discussion to the tendencies of sustainability as a term. In other words, our focus is not on sustainability itself, but on its role in discourses. 2.1. Sustainability’s unproductive controversies Of the potentially numerous problems with the term sustainability, a few are particularly important to highlight. First, it is at best a paradoxical prospect, fraught with tensions and contradictions. It remains plagued by definitional issues and controversies. Defined too generally, it lacks tangible meaning. As it gathers specificity, it tends to become divisive. Competing versions—shallower, deeper, weaker, stronger—add necessary texture to the discourse [7] but generate confusion and inhibit the accessibility of the term.3 In practice, the pursuit of sustainability appears to be largely about balance—balancing a myriad of processes and activities extending through time. The ultimate breadth of its appeal is therefore questionable. To cultures more drawn to novelty, discovery, growth and 1
Since we argue that these terms are problematic and part of the problem lies in their over-use, we will not offer, as is usual, their popular definitions. 2 Hughes and Johnstone [6, p. 813], for example, discuss the prospect of a ‘‘‘triple-win’ opportunity for growth, greater equity and resource-efficiency’’. 3 Gilg et al [8, p. 481] note, as do many others, that ‘‘Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people.’’ Likewise, the tag of sustainability can be applied to virtually anything.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
659
conquest, the pursuit of balance may never generate broad enthusiasm or become a galvanizing goal. Further clouding matters, sustainability is used both literally and metaphorically, but the difference is not always clear. To some it is an urgent and achievable imperative to be taken quite literally, while to others it is a compass pointing to a distant goal to be achieved many generations from now, if ever. The relationship between sustainability and relativity is also problematic. Although many would concede that truly sustainable societies are largely beyond our reach in the shorter term, the pursuit of ‘‘relatively sustainable’’ societies has a less compelling ring. Sustainability lends itself more readily to absolute distinctions: either something is sustainable, or not. In a world full of relativity, sustainability is awkward as a unifying goal. Next, there are some troubling contradictions. Although the achievement of ‘‘strong sustainability’’ would appear to necessitate dramatic reductions in resource intensive human activities, there is still little evidence of this actually occurring to a significant enough extent. Ironically, many plans and strategies that claim to be based on principles of sustainability involve unsustainable interventions of all kinds—for example new (albeit greener) buildings, new vehicles or new infrastructure. Even restoration activities are often resource intensive. Relatively few sustainability strategies assume no new human interventions or activities of some kind, even if they make justifiable claims of incremental dematerialization. Even the most sincere pursuit of sustainability can contribute to the problem rather than address it.4 It may be difficult to imagine radically dematerialized or non-material human activity, but deep sustainability, by definition, seems to require it urgently. In this context, it is difficult to blame those who consider sustainability to be literally impossible in the foreseeable future. It is at best a long term stretch goal—a summit—but its sheer ambition may be a net handicap, discouraging many who might otherwise be inspired by goals that they consider to be more achievable, even on long, inter-generational timeframes. 2.2. An uninspiring abstraction Along with some of these more fundamental problems, sustainability strikes many as an oddly clinical term. It can be engaging to scientists—indeed, it is essentially a scientific term—but it is generally uninspiring and inaccessible. Fricker argues the opposite, stating that sustainability is ‘‘ya dynamic, a state of collective grace that resonates with something deep within us’’ [9]. He argues that sustainability resonates, even if we have a poor understanding of what it is, and even if it defies objective interpretation. Fricker is not alone in this hopeful sentiment, but sustainability remains an abstraction to many. Other terms may be equally abstract—for example, diversity, equity, uncertainty or complexity—but even these terms are arguably more compelling because people can sense them in aspects of their everyday lives. Sustainability becomes more compelling when associated with a process or activity—sustainable energy or transportation, for example— but it is just as often used as a stand-alone term and therefore de-contextualized. As a stand-alone term, it pales in comparison to more compelling terms such as, for example, peace or health. 4
Researchers have noted a ‘‘rebound effect’’ in which supposedly greener technologies can sometimes in practice cause further excessive economic growth (for example, [3, p. 485]).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 660
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
Even those who are strongly committed to sustainability as a vision struggle to find its appropriate levels of meaning and application. Some argue that sustainability is most accessible and compelling when considered at smaller-scale levels and issues in which individuals have a strong personal stake. Others argue that it has more relevance at largerscale or system levels, where more complex interactions unfold. In order for it to be meaningful at micro, macro, system, community, regional and global levels, sustainability would need to be an incredibly powerful and agile concept. In practice, however, its seemingly universal applicability dilutes its meaning and power. Much of the intrigue and attractiveness of sustainability frameworks and strategies rests on their claims to be integrative and reconciling. Sustainability claims to offer a more holistic way to consider and resolve issues. In practice, this integrative potential has been only partly realized, for several reasons. First, fragmented approaches to management, planning and governance are tenacious, and many people tend to be strongly attached to single issues or small-picture concerns.5 Second, in many instances the tradeoffs involved in environmental and development issues appear to be quite evident, making win-win seem unlikely if not impossible, at least in the shorter-term. Third, examining issues holistically may introduce unmanageable complexity. The pursuit of sustainability is conducive to substantial complexity, but complexity itself tends to be historically unsustainable.6 As Tainter [11] notes, with every advance in science the difficulty of the task is increased. It seems clear that the same applies to sustainability—it tends to become more difficult as it is pursued, revealing increasingly wicked problems. Finally, in some cases people may find sustainability a useful term that captures part of the challenge—say, the ecological or economic dimensions—but less useful in describing other parts, such as the social and cultural aspects. They might find ‘‘social well being’’ to be more meaningful, but they may still have to contend with sustainability as the overarching (if not overbearing) term. 2.3. Sustainability’s waning influence For the most part, despite its win-win tone and emphasis on opportunities, sustainability is strongly linked to the crisis-driven messages of environmentalism. The processes through which sustainability has been advocated have been characterized by all the same elements as earlier waves of environmentalism: ideology, activism, alarmism, disasters, crises, disputed facts, contentious indicators and doomsday scenarios. (Or, just as unsubtly, it has been employed as an unconvincing catchword in public policy initiatives or for marketing purposes in the private sector.) While there is substantial agreement that the risks and problems driving environmentalism are real enough, there are limits to how much a crisisdriven message can continue to motivate people. The message is inspiring and compelling to some, but simply too daunting and negative to others. What was intended to be a galvanizing, integrating new vision instead leaves many in despair. Confronted by the accelerated ecological damage of the last two centuries, along with its ominous implications, current generations are burdened heavily by past, present and future. Few 5
Hajer [10] discussed paradoxes of the environment and sustainable development discourse, noting that agreement and coalitions can be shaky. Indeed, the more deeply the prospect sustainability is explored, the more contentious it usually becomes. 6 Tainter [11, p. 401], citing several other scholars, makes an argument concerning the diminishing returns of confronting complexity. Like the pursuit of sustainability, it tends to become more difficult as it unfolds, quickly escalating to a point of unmanageability.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
661
would argue against the general intent of sustainability advocates, but the vision of sustainable societies feels like a long-term prospect, with relatively little progress on the near horizon and a great deal more crisis management in the foreseeable future. In this context, it is difficult to blame pessimists who view the prospect of sustainability with skepticism and disengagement. To summarize, sustainability leaves many people uninspired, it is plagued by ongoing confusion, and many believe that it has serious theoretical and practical shortcomings. It may be a transitional term rather than a lasting, long-term framework for planning, strategy, research and action. Its contribution has been important and far-reaching, but its limitations necessitate the continued search for better terms and frameworks. 3. Information and sustainability Even the most cursory consideration of the nature and vast role of information reveals a number of significant problems and paradoxes.7 But first, it can be deceptively difficult and problematic to even define the term; information can be taken to mean almost anything— data, knowledge, communication or media. There are important differences between mere information and knowledge, but these distinctions are blurred increasingly as the ‘‘information society’’ or ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ become normalized but not necessarily understood. Largely proprietary and technology-driven, the information industry creates unprecedented opportunities but also some disquieting vagaries, and complicates even a basic understanding of information, its uses and tendencies. Even if information and its nature can be understood, it remains a problematic phenomenon. Elegant but amorphous, timely but ephemeral, information can be profound or meaningless. We can interpret, analyze, transform, collect and manipulate it endlessly. Information is infinite, as are the options to deal with it, even if many of them are pointless. It is inherently incomplete—there is never quite enough of it, perpetuating an endless quest for more. Even the considerable information supply of the internet tends to only heighten our awareness of gaps and vacuums. The information world is rich in potential but much of it is perpetually unrealized. 3.1. Information society? The idea of the information society has wide currency, even though its nature and benefits are contentious. Some enthusiasts claim that information and communication technologies will be instrumental in addressing a range of social, ecological and economic problems, although exactly how these solutions will unfold is seldom clear.8 While the concept of what an information society actually entails is a topic of debate, it is widely 7 Tsoukas, for example, offers a compelling discussion of the ‘‘temptations and paradoxes of the information society’’, arguing, among other points, that more information may lead to less understanding, and that a variety of problems may prevent the promises of the information society from being realized [5]. 8 Inayatullah [12] and Galtung [13] offer, respectively, critiques of the information era or information society. Despite a substantial body of critical literature on the information society, cyber-enthusiasm is an enduring force. Berkout and Hertin [1, p. 903] argue for ‘‘the need to move beyond the dichotomy between pessimism and optimism’’ in the information and communication technology debate, but acknowledge that the relationship between these technologies and the environment is ‘‘complex, interdependent, deeply uncertain and scaledependent’’.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 662
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
equated with increased knowledge and sophistication. An information-based economy and globalization are seen by some as the centerpieces of a new, more advanced order. Whether anyone is actually living in an information society at present is debatable. The gap between wealth and living standards varies widely among countries, and the level of technology— especially information and communication technology—is often wider still. A truer ‘‘information society’’ would provide the tools to manage and leverage information of all types by the whole of a society. This suggests accessible, networked, and ubiquitous technologies that help individuals analyze and understand significant amounts of information on a daily basis—a vision that for the most part remains far beyond our individual and collective grasp. 3.2. Information sustainability? On the surface, it might seem logical to link the concepts of sustainability and information in various ways,9 and to assume that the relationship is a profound one. Both of these assumptions are questionable. First, let us consider the general question of ‘‘information sustainability’’ and its implications. Of all things, information systems should be relatively easy to sustain, because they are largely and increasingly high technology-based. They are far less complex than, for example, economic, social and ecological systems. And yet, the sustainability of information and its systems is in serious question. Researchers report that over 800 MB of information is produced every year for each person on the planet, amounting to an estimated 5 exabytes of new information created every year [14]. The format and content of information seem to be increasingly mono-cultural, as much of the new information is produced in purely digital format by the technologically dominant West. This ensures that the issue of information sustainability will continue to preoccupy many, whether or not it is ultimately a useful question. Even if, as seems unlikely, it could be demonstrated that information systems and industries were sustainable, other important issues would remain unresolved—problems relating to security and privacy, for example. More fundamentally, there is little, if any, clear evidence that information technology, with its many problematic tendencies, is or will become a net asset that will help improve societies. It can just as easily be argued that it is little more than a grand distraction. 3.3. Information waste and decay When considering the characteristic problems of the world of information technology, terms other than sustainability appear to be apropos. Koski, for example, uses the more accessible and meaningful term ‘‘infoglut’’ in discussing knowledge productivity [15]. The concept of information sustainability is more difficult to visualize, and it tends to be misleading, because other issues such as format and presentation may be more problematic than sheer volumes of information. Tsoukas suggests that ‘‘in the information society, the 9 Jokinen et al. [3] argued the opposite, up to a point, contending that the information society and sustainable development discourses were competing and used as ‘‘mutually exclusive notions’’. And yet, their work and that of others exemplify a small but significant literature that examines the connection. Heinonen et al. [2] also explore it and argue that the more positive aspects of the information society can contribute to ecologically sustainable development.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
663
abundance of information tends to overshadow the phenomena to which information refers’’ [5, p. 832]. Since it appears to be easy to confuse and conflate information issues, transparent language is all the more necessary. While information sustainability may lack precise meaning, there are significant questions of efficiency, waste and resource use in information management. The rapid rate of innovation and acceptance in most information environments has created an expectation of ongoing, rapid change. Even significant downturns in the economics of the technology industry in the earlier part of this decade did little to slow the introduction of new technologies and the forced obsolescence of old ones. Instead of evolving as organizations evolve, web-based environments must be abandoned, either partially or wholly, and rebuilt from scratch or from the broken pieces of its parent in order to keep up with the rapid organizational change of contemporary companies, agencies and organizations. With these wasteful practices, the net contribution of the informationbased economy to dematerialization is far from clear—if, indeed, that is a realistic prospect at all. There are other, built-in wasteful tendencies. The presentation of information provides a type of implicit metadata that seeks to contextualize the information itself. With the objectification of information into discrete elements of seemingly heterogeneous databases and information warehouses, the output or presentation of information is now much less likely to provide an accurate representation of its original context. Indeed, the presented context or output is more likely to represent an agenda or ideology that has no direct or true relationship with the original information context. Regardless of the volume of information that can be provided, the information itself may be of limited value due to the inaccuracies introduced by erroneous re-contextualization. Instead of information pollution, we have information decay, where the value of the information is greatly weakened by the process of stripping out and reintroducing context. Extensive information decay seems increasingly inevitable, an unintended outcome of information technology.10 For one thing, this suggests that the world of information is increasingly de-contextualized. But, more importantly, this type of problem simply exemplifies the dreariness of the putative information society, and obscures more significant issues. 3.4. Convergence of environments? The last 50 years have seen a continued movement towards increasing interaction in information environments. Over the last 10 years, the changes have been dramatic and unsettling, bringing issues of privacy, digital and personal rights, and a fear of being overwhelmed by over-information. This unease is further compounded by the as yet unseen but rapidly approaching transition from screen-based interaction with information environments to ubiquitous computing. Ubiquitous computing, or the idea of everything human-made having a computer in it, is rapidly approaching a point where it becomes an integral part of our lives: wireless networks, multifunction cell phones, personal GPS units, RFID tags and sensor-web technology are all reaching a stage where they will be able to communicate with each other in real time. This will create a rapid process of convergence, 10
Cory Doctorow uses the term ‘‘metacrap’’ in reference to the problem of too much metadata added to information. http://www.well.com/doctorow/metacrap.htm.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 664
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
where the greater information environment and other environments could merge to become a seamless experience for humans. Already, urban planning efforts in some cities have become focused on specifically planning for ‘‘ubicomp’’. While top-down approaches to implementing ubicomp are unproven, this highlights the speed at which societies are moving towards this point of environmental convergence. Ubicomp implies a change in the role of computing, which becomes ‘‘ambient social infrastructure’’ [16]. As is the case with so many aspects of the information society, the social and environmental effects of this change are unclear and difficult if not impossible to predict. As this type of change unfolds, the boundaries between physical space and information space will continue to blur. This convergence of the virtual and the natural and built could have positive outcomes, or it could combine the best and worst elements of physical and information environments. In imagining alternatives to these types of processes and outcomes, new frameworks and critiques are needed. The concept of ‘‘information ecology’’ holds some promise as a way to rethink information and its context. Nardi and O’Day define it as: ‘‘ya system of people, practices, values, and technologies in a particular environment’’ [17, pp. 49–58]. Information ecology argues that the focus should not be on the technology itself, but on the human processes that are supported by the technology. This is but one example of the more proactive and critical sort of discourse that is needed to address the implications of the information society experiments. 3.5. A house of mirrors If sustainability and information are problematic terms separately, together they form a house of mirrors, leading to circular, self-referential questions. Does information need to be sustainable, and what if it does? How much does ecological sustainability depend on information? If knowledge gaps are barriers to the pursuit of sustainability, is more information the answer? Is information overload a primary cause of ecological unsustainability? Are information-intensive solutions sustainable? Are information technologies a net benefit in terms of ‘‘dealing with complexity’’, or do they add complexity and perpetuate wicked problems? Is the information economy a step toward ecological sustainability, or simply a diversion? And so on. When we consider sustainability and information together, we fall into a trap of synergistic confusion. In the fog of sustainability, the information society sheds little light, and introduces its own dark alleys. 4. Subtle world 4.1. Subtle and nuanced discourse As argued earlier, the confusion surrounding sustainability has reached the stage where it is unproductive and unedifying. The basic message of sustainability is well enough conceived; it stresses, among other things, the ecological context of life, its many interconnections and the limits to over-exploitation of resources. But the vagueness of the term makes it overly susceptible to misappropriation, abuse and irrelevance. Even at best, its value in engaging broad dialogue is limited. Many people, although not necessarily discouraged by sustainability messages, are largely unmoved by them and are generally
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
665
disinclined towards social movements, ideology or prescriptive solutions. They may prefer to entertain a number of different problem definitions, options and strategies, and may find voluntary paths more palatable than an imposed sustainability imperative. Three decades of experimentation with environmental policy provides considerable evidence that many of its objectives—eco-efficiency, reduced consumption, better planning, etc.—are largely voluntary in nature. The factors that motivate people vary substantially, and this inherent diversity and complexity of motivations demands an equally diverse and nuanced approach to stimulating change. If the sustainability discourse, clouded by the vagaries of the information society, is at best a transitional phase (or, worse, a conceptual dead end), it appears that a key lesson is the need for a subtler exploration of our challenges. In striving for convergence, we have lost meaning and specificity. The overuse of generic terms has had a channeling effect, leading debate along narrow lines and ultimately limiting it. Instead of a single, overarching term like sustainability, we need a range of terms, a more robust collection, with more complexity, nuance, unpredictability and creativity. The more subtle world beyond sustainability is one in which a richer language and a broader array of terms and frameworks are used. Partly because of its relatively brief history, the environmental movement and its related debates have yet to be characterized by a sufficient richness of imagination and language. Processes of change are subtle and complex, and must be supported and reflected by artful terms. The vocabulary of more mature realms and sectors is much richer than the primarily scientific language of sustainability, and the implications should not be underestimated. In a more subtle language lurk ideas and insights that can catalyze change. The behavioral, cultural and institutional changes required to address the ecological crisis are, once again, ultimately voluntary in nature. They are more likely to result from a subtle, edifying discourse than from the blunt language of sustainability or from over-information. 4.2. Creative and diverse engagement As argued earlier, sustainability does not capture adequately the essence and complexity of the ecological crisis in its various dimensions. Although some people are sufficiently intrigued by the challenges implied by sustainability, many others remain only tangentially or conditionally engaged by it. Not surprisingly, when links between sustainability challenges and more creative and spiritual matters are made, engagement tends to increase. Issues that bridge personal, creative, spiritual and ecological dimensions are compelling, because the interrelationships are profound. The sustainability discourse has attempted to bridge ecological, economic and social concerns, but it needs to be more nuanced and extend further into other relevant dimensions. In the sustainability discourse, the importance of diversity as a complementary objective is often recognized. A strong case can be made for making diversity a more overarching goal; if we maintained and enhanced the diversity of cultural and biotic systems, many ecological challenges would be addressed. This goes beyond mere terminological significance due to, as argued earlier, the far-reaching influence of language in social discourse. Diversity, in its many forms, can be a subtle, intriguing goal, implying an almost infinite range of possibilities and usually desirable ecological and social conditions. Like all terms or frameworks, it has limitations, but its potential once again illustrates the desirability of looking beyond sustainability.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 666
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
4.3. Information, narratives and behavior change When information fulfills its potential and supports learning, it can make substantial contributions to behavior change, leading to measurable improvements in environmental performance at different levels. It is clear that some behavior changes have occurred to date at personal, institutional and societal levels, bringing, in some cases, reduced consumption, increased recycling and enhanced eco-efficiencies. Over the course of decades, a rich and varied discourse has cultivated and disseminated the information that has inspired these changes, ranging from arts to sciences, experiential learning, community initiatives, science fiction, children’s stories, utopian or dystopian narratives, poetry, scenarios, journalism, and beyond, drawing from virtually every discipline and extending into every medium. The environmental movement can be thought of as a meta-narrative or set of alternative narratives,11 inspiring changes over time, even if unevenly and incrementally. That this has happened, despite the brief history of the contemporary environmental movement and its evolving but still limited language, owes much to a prevailing spirit of openness, experimentation and improvisation—an urge and tendency to preserve a measure of unpredictability and creativity in the discourse. With this characteristic diversity of approaches, the discourse will continue to be fruitful, especially if overarching terms and frameworks do not constrain it. A continuing dialogue in which different futures are imagined and debated will inspire further learning and behavior change. Not all of this exploration needs to refer to sustainability, nor does it need to be translated into forms of information that conform to sustainability measures, indicators and reports. Indeed, the strength of the discourse is that it is much too diverse to be channeled in any single direction and it unfolds across many communities, some quite unrelated. This variety is critical; as history shows, futures can emerge from the least expected places. 4.4. Subtle applications for information technology As argued, there is a misplaced overconfidence in the information society path as a source of solutions. Conceptualizing and analyzing the challenges of the ecological crisis requires clear thinking, uncomplicated by diversions into parallel areas like information technology and its debates. Given the problems associated, respectively, with sustainability and information, focusing on their links is unlikely to be fruitful. Nevertheless, information and communication technology has spawned a number of interesting applications and spin-offs, and it is possible to imagine a culture emerging that is more sophisticated. Wikis, blogs and social software technologies that focus on bottom-up, nonexpert driven systems like folksonomies are beginning to show that they can support many subtle and sophisticated uses of information systems. 5. Conclusion The popularization of the term sustainability has had a profound and far-reaching impact on discourse, but its influence is waning. The quest for a term with universal 11 There is a rich literature exploring various aspects of this, including, for example, Foucault on learning and scholarship [18]; Herman on narrative theory and cognitive science [19]; Ricoeur on ‘‘time and narrative’’ [20]; White on historiography [21]; and Cronon, on narratives and environmentalism [22].
ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
667
meaning and resonance has in practice inhibited diversity, cultural relativity and subtlety. If future discourses are to be more productive, a new terminology and discourse needs to emerge, unclouded by the many diversions of information technology and the quest for the information society. A more subtle discourse will lead to more subtle development— perhaps not the rapid revolution hoped for by sustainability visionaries, but a very promising and welcome shift. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. References [1] F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies and the environment, Futures 36 (8) (2004) 903–920. [2] S. Heinonen, P. Jokinen, J. Kaivo-oja, The ecological transparency of the information society, Futures 33 (2001) 319–337. [3] P. Jokinen, P. Malaska, J. Kaivo-oja, The environment in an ‘Information Society’: a transition stage towards more sustainable development?, Futures 30 (6) (1998) 485–498. [4] J. Park, N. Roome (Eds.), The Ecology of the New Economy: Sustainable Transformation of Global Information, Communication, and Electronics Industries, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 2002. [5] H. Tsoukas, The tyranny of light: the temptations and paradoxes of the information society, Futures 29 (9) (1997) 827–843. [6] B.B. Hughes, P.D. Johnston, Sustainable futures: policies for global development, Futures 37 (2005) 813–831. [7] Ayres, et al., Strong vs. weak sustainability, Environmental Ethics 23 (2) (Summer 2001). [8] A. Gilg, S. Barr, N. Ford, Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer, Futures 37 (2005) 481–504. [9] A. Fricker, Measuring up to sustainability, Futures 30 (4) (1998) 367–375. [10] M.A. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford University Press, Guildford, 1995. [11] J.A. Tainter, Sustainability of complex societies, Futures 27 (4) (1995) 397–407. [12] S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing the information era, Futures 30 (2/3) (1998) 235–247. [13] J. Gatlung, Information, communication and their future in post modernity, Futures 30 (1998) 219–221. [14] HowMuchInformation. 2003. Available from: /http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/ how-much-info/summary.htmlS [15] J.T. Koski, Reflections on information glut and other issues in knowledge productivity, Futures 33 (2001) 483–495. [16] P. Morville, Ambient Findability: What We Find Changes Who We Become, O’Reilly Media, Sebastepol, US, 2005. [17] B.A. Nardi, V.L. O’Day, Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. [18] M. Foucault, The Archaeology of knowledge (Translated from the French by A.M. Sheridan Smith), Pantheon Books, New York, 1972. [19] D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 2003. [20] P. Ricoeur, in: P. Rincoeur (Ed.), Time and Narrative, vol. 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer). [21] H.V. White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1987. [22] W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1996.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 668
P.R. Mulvihill, M.J. Milan / Futures 39 (2007) 657–668
Further reading [23] Wikipededia, Creation of the Internet, Available from: /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_societyS [24] E.J. Wilson III, Inventing the global information future, Futures 30 (1) (1998) 23–42.