Technology Is Not A Political Ideology... Or Is It?

During the production of this edition of Australian Popular Science, I received an impassioned letter from a now-former reader who was in despair. He was in despair at the extent to which the magazine has been taken over by a Greens/Socialist political ideology.

As evidence he pointed to our anti-fracking article, our feature on software’s role in causing the South Australian blackouts, my own column on the possible future of (no) work, and just the general sort of vibe of the whole thing.

I took a look at those articles again, while making the best possible attempt to be objective, and I really don’t think it’s fair to call PopSci a mouthpiece of the radical, economy-destroying Green conspiracy. We don’t insist that fracking should be banned, merely developed with caution. We don’t say that renewable energy is perfect and blameless, merely that there are other factors involved. As for a future with no work... yeah, I admit that is pretty socialist. You know, socialism, the ideology of the workers.

Anyway, it’s clear that from here on in, PopSci is going to face an increasing problem of having a perceived leftist agenda. And that’s because we cover NEW technology. And new technology is disruptive, and by its nature challenges established – dare I say conservative – systems that have been in place for decades.

PopSci can never be pro-coal, because as a technology, coal is obsolete. The question of its replacement is economic, not technological. If money was no object, coal could be replaced entirely today. The same goes for most fossil-fuels. This magazine looks to the decades ahead, to a world shifting to a different kind of carbon economy – one where carbon is the core building material, not the core source of energy.

For us, carbon is a magical element capable of forming structures with incredible strength, lightness and various other useful properties. To us, coal is something you use to produce carbon nanodots, not something you chuck in a furnace.

As for renewable energy, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Wind turbines aren’t being built by the Tarkine People’s Forest Collective Arts and Crafts Festival (Vegan Food Only). These hulking pieces of advanced technology are being built and installed by companies like Siemens and GE. If there’s a conspiracy to give wind or solar an unfair economic advantage, it’s not being run by the Greens. It’s being run by multinational corporations.

Popular Science’s only real political opponents are those who believe technology is inherently bad, and is destroying the world. The people who, if all coal stations shut down tomorrow, would pivot to complain about the environmental cost of wind turbines, or solar farms, or and especially of hydroelectric stations.

If you’re anti-technology, then indignation at the sorts of articles we publish is perfectly justified. If you’re just on the mainstream left-right spectrum more generally, maybe think about what we’re actually telling you, before taking offence at our refusal to condemn renewables, or endorse fracking.

Here’s something ironic: check the comments section below any political story on a website that normally covers gadgets or videogames or something else technological. There will always be someone saying: “Stop writing political stories. I don’t come to this website for political stories!”

Unfortunately, in this age of increasing partisan polarisation, technology has absolutely become political. Can you imagine, 100 years ago, having a vicious political argument with someone based on what particular method of electricity generation they preferred? Over whether a mining technique that gouges out great holes in the landscape is better or worse than a technique that shoots perfectly good water into poisonous rocks to smash them apart?

PopSci cannot resist technological change. We can’t do the magazine we’ve been doing for the whole of the last century, and not at least show a keen interest in every new technology that comes along.

And we critique where appropriate. Tesla’s first generation PowerWall isn’t worth the money. Renewable grid power needs a backup system, and it makes sense to use fossil fuels in that system for a while yet. Electric cars still recharge too slowly. The entire smartphone industry is probably a pyramid scheme of some kind. I’d put NASA’s chances of landing a human on Mars, ever, at no more than 50:50.

Final thought? Angrily demanding that the magazine abandon its Green/Socialist political ideology and instead embrace the current economic status quo, where the buck you make today is always more important than the potential economic collapse of tomorrow, is ALSO a political ideology. And one that’s rather more extreme than how we like to write.

Anthony Fordham has never run for political office, not even for student SRC. His attitude to space elevators and starships best reflects the politics of the late 20th century science fiction nerd.