Today the science-technology-philosophy group discussed energy issues. I’ve jotted down some thoughts here.
The present energy system cannot possibly be sustained forever; within a few decades major adjustments will have to be made, and this is beyond dispute. But how exactly to adjust it, and how to anticipate and act, remain questions to be explored.
The usual modern Western mode of imagining things is Christian + classical mechanics. By the Christian mode of imagining, I mean a messianic complex: the belief that human beings will eventually be saved, that our fallenness and incompetence do not really matter, and that there will always be some savior who comes to save us. This complex gives rise to a series of fantasies: first, the future is always beautiful; second, that beautiful future does not depend primarily on our actual deeds, but on some magical force beyond specific human action; finally, all we need to do is believe in and praise this force, and conform to it, and then we can be saved.
With regard to the energy problem, people (for example, Simon) believe that without our having to do anything in particular, the “invisible hand” will make adjustments; when traditional energy sources are exhausted, changes in cost will inevitably prompt people to develop new resources, and the successful development of those new resources will bring human society into a beautiful new era. But can we really develop new resources? In particular, is it not possible that the exhaustion of energy leads to escalating political struggles on a global scale, ultimately causing human beings to slaughter one another and even destroy themselves? Why is it certain that people can always find the right and sufficient new energy in time? This is just superstition. Whether one places one’s hopes in a messiah, in the millennial kingdom promised by Christ, or in the invisible hand or technological progress, the crux is not whether these hopes can be realized, but first and foremost that people thereby renounce freedom. People no longer look to this world, no longer examine their own situation, no longer devote themselves to what they can do here and now, but simply submit to fate’s arrangement. In this sense, technological pessimism and technological optimism are the same; only, the pessimist does not believe that the savior will come again. But both of them do not think that the future is something they themselves must create.
The so-called classical-mechanical mode of imagining is reductionist and atomized, and also linear and one-dimensional. By reductionism I mean that whether it is the messiah who saves the energy crisis or the breakthrough point of technological innovation, all are imagined as some application of a new source of energy—whether solar power or atomic power, people reduce the energy problem to the problem of seeking the source of energy. Of course, technical experts are not so stupid as to think that merely finding a new source of energy will solve the problem. In fact, new sources of energy, such as solar power and the like, have already been found; the problem lies in how such energy can actually be applied. And in this regard, people’s usual mode of imagining is linear—that is to say, it only considers measures such as the cost and efficiency of this energy source.
But the energy problem is an overall problem involving social structure, political institutions, cultural ideas, and ways of life. Beyond providing industrial output, a certain kind of energy—quite apart from any ecological impact—will at least also affect the political configuration and people’s ways of life. Different energy sources have different political tendencies: coal is territorial and labor-intensive; nuclear power plants are centralized and technocratic; solar power is decentralized or community-based. Winna’s discussion of the politics of artifacts addressed these issues. To evaluate a new energy source, one must look not only at whether it can replace traditional energy in terms of effectiveness, but also assess the restructuring of political patterns and social relations that it contains; and such assessments will often be qualitative rather than quantitative.
So can we formulate a conception from some non-messianic, non-reductionist, non-linear mode of thinking? Of course, some romantics imagine going back to the past, rejecting technological progress, and returning to ancient ways of life. This is probably also a fantasy. Though the direction of technological development is not singular, it is nevertheless irreversible. Even if one wants to revive ancient practices in certain respects, one must still respond to the present age in a creative way. One cannot face up to modern conditions, but only turn away and look back at antiquity; that too remains a form of self-escape.
The most appropriate way is to face our real situation squarely, take on the difficulties of this age, strive to do something, and open up new paths.
Thinking of Heidegger’s “only a god can still save us,” what Heidegger wanted to express in that interview was certainly not some superstition or fantasy, but rather precisely the need to shoulder one’s real situation. The meaning of philosophy lies in reflecting on real situations, not in providing some method of salvation; if you expect philosophy to find you a plan of salvation, you might as well wait for the messiah—that is what Heidegger meant. Do not expect salvation; rather than sit waiting for a perfect solution or a savior, it is better to “prepare” for the arrival of the messiah—in other words, to do something. But if we fundamentally do not know in what manner the savior will arrive, or even whether it will arrive at all, then how are we to “prepare”? Simple: by directly facing and reflecting on reality and our circumstances. That is the task of philosophy, or our mission.
As far as the energy problem is concerned, the issue is not whether the messiah can arrive, but first of all: in the face of our existing energy structure and energy conditions, what can we do? Whether or not we can find a perfect clean energy, whether or not we can achieve a leap-like breakthrough in energy-use efficiency and storage capacity—before those unknown transformations arrive, what can we do with the energy situation that already exists?
Doing something does not necessarily mean only increases or decreases in quantity—for example, mining more or fewer coal mines, subsidizing more or fewer solar projects. From the perspective of holism or systems thinking, progress is not always reflected in numerical increase or decrease; it is often reflected in structural change. For a system to become more and more ordered, it must always rely on the input of external energy. Yet the input of energy is not necessarily better the higher it is. The solar energy received by Mercury is probably higher than that received by Earth, but such energy input has not produced the continual evolution of an ordered whole. In addition to the linear input of energy, the structural system toward which the energy is directed is equally important.
If we suspend our expectation of the messiah and look from the standpoint of the present situation, what we will face is a condition of energy gradually running dry. The energy we can consume may not continue to grow forever; at some point we may begin to face a situation in which total energy is gradually shrinking (of course, there are at least sources like solar energy—smaller in amount but sustainable—that will not be completely exhausted). So what can we do in the face of this possible future? Optimists believe that such a situation will not happen, and even if it does, it will not last, because one day we will develop new energy sources so that energy consumption can continue to be sustained; pessimists believe that such a situation means human civilization is heading toward its end; romantics may think that such a situation will simply return us to the pastoral, idyllic life of the past… In my view, even if we have not developed brand-new energy sources, even if total energy is bound to diminish day by day, that still does not mean a dead end, nor does it necessarily lead to a negation of progress.
Must “progress” always mean “higher, faster, stronger”? Not necessarily. Progress does not necessarily depend on an increase in energy effectiveness; it can also be embodied in innovation in social structure and ways of life.
Modern people’s dependence on energy is closely related to our way of life. For example, we require energy supply to be stable and continuous, and as a result, unstable energy sources such as solar and wind, which depend on favorable conditions, are disadvantaged. But why do we demand stability and continuity? Because our standardized modern way of life demands it. The assembly line turns at a uniform speed, and people work and live according to fixed, stable rhythms. Whether it is windy or rainy, people live according to clocks and the rhythm of the assembly line, rather than according to the seasons and conditions of the natural world. In this way, energy supply will inevitably have to conform to such a stable rhythm. If the supply of a certain energy source is unstable, then the only response people can think of is how to develop efficient energy-storage technology—storing the electrical energy emitted irregularly, and then supplying it out again at a uniform and stable pace. This is exactly what Heidegger called the “enframing” nature of modern technology, and the difference between the hydroelectric plant and the waterwheel in Heidegger’s view. But why not change the rhythm of life itself? Since the standardized, mechanized rhythm of life is precisely a product of the industrial age, corresponding to the energy structure and production mode of the industrial age, why can’t we try to change it? Instead of racking our brains to build and improve giant batteries, why not try changing our way of life and rhythm of work?
The so-called “co-constitution of technology and human nature”: the energy problem is a technical problem, but precisely for that reason, it is also a social-political problem.
December 26, 2010
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply