thoughts about low tech

Everyone knows the term high tech. But do you know what low tech is?

Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, high tech seemed to be an omnipresent buzzword, deeply intertwined with the narrative of technological progress. High tech was the good stuff, new and exciting devices, cutting-edge knowledge, the promising future.

The term low tech however -- by just hearing it you might assume it to be the opposite of high tech -- was not even a thing. Why would one talk about old and "boring" stuff? So I didn't hear people use the notion low tech ever until a few years ago. Since then, the term seems to finally get some traction. Ecological movements and subcultures like solarpunk started to discuss low tech in a positiive manner, using the term to describe an alternative perspective on technology and progress. There even is a Low Tech Magazine whose articles are shared widely across the internet, that I want to talk about a little. Firstly, it's important to note, that the authors don't promote an anti-technological stance (as far as I have read). On the contrary, many articles express quite a lot of enthusiasm for specific technological solutions and even innovation. However, in the magazine, low tech seems to be associated with old, but time proven technologies, simplicity, reliability and a significantly lower environmental impact.

But is this idea consistent? As its dissimilar twin high tech, low tech is a muddled term once you think about it. Because, when exactly can a device or solution be categorized low tech? The Cambridge Dictionary defines low tech, as "not using the most recent equipment or methods", but this is obviously a much more narrow definition than the concept the authors of Low Tech Magazine seem to have in mind.

Pondering about this, my mind wandered to an old analogue camera that I got from my father and really love. It's a RevueFlex AC2 single-lens reflex camera built in the early 1980s that produces beautiful pictures to this day. Being decades old, it certainly can't be considered high tech. There are no touchscreens, no algorithms, no AI involved. But can it be considered low tech? That doesn't feel right either. It certainly is not a simple device. Since there is no software involved, the mechanics and materials had to be extremely sophisticated. It was peak analogue technology and digital photography struggled for years to simulate the unique aesthetic qualities of its analogue predecessors.

Of course, also on the "high tech" end of things, matters are not quite as easy as well. Asking random folks on the street, most of them would consider electrical vehicles high tech. Tesla, right? And on the one hand: True, they are full of impressive computing power, complicated software, recently even AI. If something goes wrong, finding the bug might be really hard. In the old days, when your uncle could repair those things in his garage, these seem to be easier times in hindsight, no? But on the other hand, the automobile industry is expecting to cut loose hundreds of thousands of workers in the next years. Because from the perspective of car companies, making electrical vehicles is actually an easier task than making a traditional car. You need less specialists, less expensive machinery. For them an EV is "simply" a computer an wheels.

And we could go on about this. Many products, old or new, have simple and less simple aspects to consider about them. Incomplex builts with old designs may sometimes have nevertheless long and complicated production und distribution chains and a high environmental impact. A brand new and complicated technological device might sometimes be produced locally and need very little resources.

So high tech and low tech surely are no easily defined boxes we can sort our thougts about technology in. But can they be useful nevertheless?

Let's consider the ideological payload of the terms.

As mentioned above, high tech as a notion is most of the time used in an advertising manner. It's purpose is to sell us the newest stuff, for example a new smartphone even if our old one still works perfectly fine or to promote investemens in promising industries and markets. For companies and governments high tech is associated with goals like economic growth, competitiveness and reducing costs. Positive outcomes for everyday folks may occasionally happen, but it's important to note, that in a capitalistic economy, these outcomes are not the main driver for technologic developement nor are they the main concern for executives. And often enough, the broad introduction of new high technologies had devastating impacts on the lives of regular people such as job loss, environmental decline or side effects on the health of customers or workers. Often, these negative outcomes might not be necessarily inherent to the technologies themselves but more attributable to a lack of social and welfare policies, lax environmental standards and poor workers protection laws. But for the general public, it is not always clear who's at fault. And the decision makers of our societies often reject responsibility and hide behind phrases about how it is not possible to stop technological progress and all the wonderful but ominous opportunities that await us all in the future.

So, unsurprisingly, in the history of capitalism many people got very skeptical and anxious about some or all new technologies and their impact on society and the environment. Think about for example the luddites, the amish, the big social movements against the nuclear energy in some european countires. The examples are endless. Public resistance against certain technologies or so called technological progress as a whole, can be found on the right as well as on the left, in secular groups as well as in religious ones.

So, having a closer look, behind high tech vs low tech hide centuries old thoughts and debates. Who gets to decide what is produced and how? Who should decide what is researched and who can be held accountable for detrimental consequences? How can we protect technological solutions that are worth to be preserved because they foster equality, important cultural traits or a healthy environment? These are questions about power relations, not tech per se.

Okay, but if this is the underlying issue, should people who fight for a (more) egalitarian society participate in the low tech movement, considering the term kind of obscures the underlying power struggle? Or should we insist on using a different terminology like for example "human-centric" or "democratic" tech to underline, that technolgical research and development should be driven by social and democratic values instead of profits?

Sure, we could try that, but I don't think we would be successful, since for most people it wouldn't be immediately comprehensible what we mean by these terms either. There would even be a risk, that people would fear that we might try to sell them something they don't acutally want with euphemistic notions, like the elites constantly do.

I would argue, there is a reason that low tech as a term and topic has gained traction. It captures nicely the skepticism many people feel about the current course of things in technological development, fosters a curiosity to experiment with alternatives and calls into question the alleged inevitablity of certain kinds of technological "progress". Particpating in this debate constructivly might offer a chance to talk about broader social issues and power relations as well as pathways to a more egalitarian future. There even is a philosophical argument to be made here, since fostering this kind of counter culture could be understood as a dialectic[1] approach, which allows for something new to emerge along the way.

In summary, low tech might be a vague term not suitable for rational analysis, but in my opinion, it is still interesting since it speaks directly to a feeling many people have: That this world is not built for them, not in their best interest. And in my opinion, this feeling is entirely correct. Therefore it might spark relevant debates about pathways to a better future.

[1] I'm so sorry to use such a difficult academic word here since it's really important to me to reach readers on various educational journeys. But I'm referencing a major idea of philosophical history here, so it can't be helped. To put it as easy as possible: The word dialectic is used in philosophy to describe the idea, that clashing contradictions are inherently what changes the course of history. Depending on the philosopher, this could be ideas or social structures (like classes) but at the heart of it is a conflict that birthes something new. If you want to go deeper on this topic, search for "dialectics" in the context of the philosophers like "Marx" and "Hegel".