Ecosophy and Spirituality: Lessons from Technology

Arnie Naess, in Ecology, Community and Lifestyle (With David Rothenberg, trans., Cambridge University Press, 1991) argues that “There is no such thing as purely technical progress,” and that consequential changes in culture are inevitable. Naess forays into two directions, one of which being the material, organizational, and structural ‘secondary effects’ of technological introductions. However the 'other direction' is the one that struck me quite forcefully: that of the impact of technology on human values. (All quotes that follow are from the above work by Naess. sjs.)

Although occasional resistance to technology is raised, especially from religious groups (eg. abortion, genetic research), technology is largely granted a huge immunity to challenge, and for some interesting reasons that may not be so apparent at first sight. The first of these is the apathy which is a natural consequence of the inattentiveness that comes from the detachment through specialization and education. Technicians are not simply removed by the walls of corporate buildings and the padded uprights of office cubicles from the context in which their products will have an effect, but by the very nature of the thought-forms themselves: with attention given in one area, inattention is automatically granted to another. The areas of attention are in this case, naturally, technical. Areas of inattention could include anything else, such as nature, normative values and cultural color.

The other reason for the failure of tremendous resistance to changes in culture leveraged by technology, is the helpless passivity that can come from a diminished access to immediate power to make changes. Disempowerment – and felt disempowerment, which can add up to the same consequences – can occur for many reasons, yet with respect to the technological impact on human culture and indeed, all of life, it seems to have occurred from the state of dependence that has grown on technology, and secondarily, on the narrow elite who produce and maintain it. Now of course, it is dubious whether even this elite is actually in charge of technology, as “the general trend of modern technological development has perhaps not been masterminded by anybody, by any group or any constellation of humans. It may have developed largely ‘by itself’.”

It is these qualities that have seemed to separate the ‘everyman/woman’ from a position of actively monitoring and determining the direction and extent of technological impact on human and planetary life, which reminds me of something equally of value to human life: that of human spirituality. For instance, with respect to the felt disempowerment that occurs when a narrow elite have access to the information and physical apparatus of technological development, a similar case has grown with respect to the access to the education and power centers of contemporary religion. Those who have the most impact on the largest populations are a narrow population granted extraordinary educations and provided with the buildings and grounds that support a particular spiritual view.

Moreover, the later several thousand of years of religious power has created a dependency model for spiritual life for the average man or woman, inculcating that spiritual life necessitates the mediation of a trained clergy, and that indeed, all of humanity is in any event, ‘dependent’ on a higher power. Such teachings lead to passivity and helplessness, as access to personal authority and power is diminished.

Here, Naess’ response is intriguing, for with respect to technology, he says “Our helplessness in questions of technical ‘development’ is a myth – a very useful myth for those introducing expensive new technology. Technology is chosen, but not by consideration of society as a whole.”

This could equally be said of religious and spiritual life: the passivity, dependence and felt disempowerment is not so ‘concrete’ as may be generally assumed. Just as technology can be challenged by anyone, so can religion. The ‘learned helplessness’ of humankind in the face of technology and its negative effects on human and Earth life is a powerful parallel to the impact of contemporary religions and their negative effects. The distance created through beliefs that place heaven as separate from Earth, and the dependence that is created through beliefs in an omnipotent deity to which one must pray, have conspired with many other matters to place the future of the Earth in jeopardy.

However, as with technology, religion can be challenged, and changed. The work, however, must come from the ground up, just as it may come from elsewhere. Just as technology cannot be “isolated from a discussion of values", neither can religion. As decentralization and differentiation with respect to technology can be a means of bring richness to the human potential, so it is as well with respect to religion. Does one or another form of religion actually advance the goals of a culture? This needs to be studied in depth, and answers formed.

Fear is a block to change. For technology, it is the fear of profit in the industrial-economic sector, or fear of a reduced ‘standard of living’, or of unemployment. When it comes to matters of religion, the fear that can thwart constructive reappraisal and change would be of alienation from one’s religious community, fear of reprisal (history is resplendent with examples of murderous intolerance), or of fear of divine punishment.
The efforts of Naess to counter the momentum of a world spinning out of balance through a challenge to technology’s distance from normative values challenges as well its apparent immunity to our resistance.

It is the same with religion.