This post is part of a series related to the future of engineering as I see it.
This sequence of daily Swarn’s blog post will last a week, from october 12th to october 16th.
Enjoy!
Make sure you read Episode 1, Episode 2 and Episode 3 of our blog post series before starting the fourth one below!
Episode 4: Low-tech ≠ green-tech ≠ primitive-tech
“Better pick the right horse!”
Let me first reassure you: the low-tech concept has nothing to do with abandoning our modern and comfortable lifestyles to become farmers or wood berries harvesters relying on primitive Stone Age technologies. Such a concept should rather be considered as an alternative to our business- & technology-as-usual approach, which leads us to a potential societal dead end described above.
The “low-tech” or “low technology” terms describe the socially and environmentally optimal solution to a problem1, valuing simple over complicated solutions. The low-tech movement is not a purely technical topic, but a socio-technical, organisational and cultural phenomenon2.
It offers an alternative to our classical infinite consumption pattern (buy, use, throw away, repeat) by ensuring goods simplicity, modularity, reliability, repairability and recyclability.
The “Less is the new more” or “Small is beautiful” concepts then promote products simplicity and minimalism as opposed to the modern “always more” paradigm leading to the quick obsolescence of goods.
Let’s be clear, the low-tech movement as I see it doesn’t advocate for the abortion of technological research & development but rather for the balancing of technological benefits and their associated environmental and social impact.
Humanity still needs advances in biomedical technologies to cure diseases or in earth observation technologies to monitor climate change. Does it however really need a massive adoption of 4K digital screens or three lenses smartphone cameras?
No one can stop a detrimental industrial activity but anyone can refuse to support it by boycotting it and finding alternatives.
Let’s illustrate the low-tech concept through some available examples found online.
Automated fishing: low-tech vs. high-tech solution
While crawling some social networks for distracting content, I found this nice (ultra) low-tech illustration of an automated fishing tool: It is simple, modulable, recyclable and repairable. As a comparison, the higher-tech way is full of carbon and steel materials. It is, therefore, more complex, less modulable, less recyclable and harder to repair.
The large accessibility and low environmental impact of the first illustration is striking. Yet, we are more used to solutions similar to the second illustration…The low-tech movement is already well established in emerging countries, especially through frugal innovation. It is however gaining visibility in western societies as ecological awareness and concerns grows.Electric mobility: low-tech vs. high-tech solution
I’ve always been fascinated by the rise of Tesla and how they achieved to compete directly with the well established giants of the automotive industry.
Tesla cars inspire me feelings of freedom, security and performance. Their technological advances in terms of autonomous driving is striking.
Tesla’s latest video over Tesla Model Y illustrates my comments:
Let’s now check another video over a different electric car, the Citroën Ami, which proposes its own approach to electric car mobility.
For the same (sub)urban use, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of us prefer the Tesla Model Y with its green- & high-tech design.
Yet, the Citroën Ami would be a more sustainable choice: it is shared, efficient, simple and accessible.
The Citroën Ami is indeed a good illustration of the low-tech approach because it takes the best of the electric mobility technology and integrates it in a minimalist and sober design, while adapting the business model to minimize the solution’s environmental & social impact.
Is the Citroën Ami showing us the way in terms of technical engineering, business engineering and consumption habits?
I think it definitely is. I however believe there is still room for improvements in terms of low-tech products development, mainly in their user desirability: the habits change should be minimal and the design should be as appealing as possible.
Indeed, in order to be successful, the low-tech transition must be desirable and gradual to earn long term public support.
What would it take to achieve such a challenge and see more and more successful low-tech products on the market?
We address such a question in Episode 5, the last episode of our blog series on the future of engineering.
