Technology innovation, life, and the 21st century – ten alternative perspectives

Ten alternative perspectives on technology innovation and life in the 21st century.

Dec 14 – 18 on 2020 Science

A series of guest blogs from Marcy Darnovsky (Center for Genetics & Society), Geoff Tansey (Food Ethics Council), Georgia Miller (Friends of the Earth), Tim Jackson (University of Surrey), Gregor Wolbring (University of Calgary), Jen Sass (NRDC), Richard Owen (University of Westminster), George Kimbrell (ICTA), Richard Worthington (Loka) and Jim Thomas (ETC Group).

Life in the 21st century is going to depend increasingly on technology innovation.  Governments believe this.  Industry believes this.  Scientists believe this.  But is technology innovation really the solution to every challenge facing humanity, or have we got hooked on an innovation habit so deeply we don’t even see the addiction?  And even if it is important – essential even – who decides which innovations are nurtured and how they are used?

I must confess I’m a staunch believer in the importance of technology innovation.  But I was reminded recently that not everyone sees the world in the same way, and that there are very different but equally valid perspectives on how science and technology should be used within society.

As a result, I decided to commission ten guest blogs on technology innovation from people working for, associated with or generally reflecting the views of Civic Society groups.  The aim was twofold – to expose readers to perspectives on technology innovation that are sometimes drowned out in mainstream conversations, and to give a sense of the breadth of opinions and perspectives that are often lumped under the banners of “civic society” or “Non Government Organizations.”

To be honest, the idea scares the life out of me – I suspect I won’t agree with every one of my guest bloggers, and I’m sure some of my readers won’t.  But I’m doing this regardless because these perspectives matter – just because they are different, doesn’t mean they are without value.

As it turns out, the pieces are excelling my highest expectations (I’m still waiting for the final few as I write this) – whether you are a tech believer or a tech skeptic, or somewhere in between, these blogs will inform, challenge and even amuse you.  You may not agree with everything that’s written.  But nevertheless you will be poorer for not reading it!

The ten blogs will be published over the course of a week – two per day from a Monday to Friday – between Dec 14 – 18.  As they go live, I’ll be linking to them from here.

Finally, my sincerest appreciation to all the contributors to this series, who were more than willing to take the time to help others understand how they see the world. – Thank You!

The ten alternative perspectives on technology innovation are:

Monday, December 14:

Biopolitics for the 21st Century
Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics & Society

Innovation for whom? Innovation for what? The Impact of Ableism
Gregor Wolbring, University of Calgary

Tuesday, December 15:

Beyond safety: some bigger questions about new technologies
Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth

Innovation for a well-fed world – what role for technology?
Geoff Tansey, Food Ethics Council

Wednesday, December 16:

Stop and Think: A Luddite Perspective
Jen Sass, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC)

A new era of responsible innovation
Richard Owen, University of Westminster

Thursday, December 17:

Ecology and Nanotechnology
Richard Worthington, Loka

Reversing the Technological Dilemma
George Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA)

Friday, December 18:

Innovation in the Doc
Tim Jackson, University of Surrey

21st Century Tech Governance? What would Ned Ludd do?
Jim Thomas, ETC Group

Subscribe to the 2020 Science email feed for automatic notifications of publication.

Update 12/15/09 – Debra Harry’s blog, scheduled for 12/16/09, has been replaced at short notice by a piece by Professor Richard Owen

This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.