On Why Economic Resetting is a Critical Precursor to the Remote Revolution

Sustainability is one of the key elements driving a push for a Remote Revolution but as it’s been discussed already, there are several overarching barriers preventing sustainability initiatives, especially as they relate to implementing ICT as critical infrastructure at the local and macro levels.

Enter capitalism. One of the biggest barriers that exists to sustainability—at least capitalism in its current form. The hedonisitic form that leaves little room for the community-based projects, for ICT to take the place of traditional modes of working, being, living.

It’s difficult to believe that only a couple of months ago there was some relentlessly grim speculating going on about just how quickly the economy would collapse—and not just the economies of Western nations-- the entire world. For the first time in decades, we were (and still are) forced to question the viability of our current economic structure as a nation, as a cluster of allied nations (IMF, WorldBank, etc) and as a global entity.

And okay, it’s time to say it: These predictions were (and still are) questioning capitalism, whether directly or indirectly. And it seems that the most overt, penetrating questions about the viability of capitalism as a system come when the topic of a market economy and a sustainable future clash. Because clash they do.

Sustainability and capitalism do not mesh. They cannot. They are driven by completely different objectives—the former is local, national, and global—it is large in scope; the latter is uniquely personal and based on the individual.  The one seeks to sustain rather than immediately deliver; it favors positive projection of future needs over the gratification of the instant and readily available. Instead of sustaining, capitalism carries an almost disturbing level of temporality in its goals and delivery—again, making it an uncomfortable partner to sustainability.

What is this? Some kind of blatant, irreligious attack on capitalism? The written equivalent of slapping the entire post-Enlightenment, pre-Gen X population and all of its sacrifice in the face?

Of course not. But there are bones that need picking.

Coming from an American perspective, we hit a point where there could be no more lying to ourselves using the old “bootstraps” self-argument.  There is no denying now that our institutions are broken and crippled by a system that no longer could support the levels and types of consumption habits that have been steadily mounting in quantity and an insatiable, questing sort of intensity over the past several years.

We are appropriately cautious in our critique of capitalism—of that system that has served us so well in the past. As a society, we see capitalism as something unshakable; it’s inherent, part of our fabric, culture, power, mystique.

When it comes to capitalism, there is a national sense of awe. The voices of dissent are drowned out by the cry of the mainstream, the business-driven, the private sector. There is what I can only describe as an almost patriotic reverence or capitalism. But it is an old system; cracks are emerging in this collection of bones we’ve stacked on top one another to build this thing and now that after all of these years we've finally finished building it, we see that his thing is a dinosaur. We've spent this time building something that does not have a place in the historical period it has been placed in.

A dinosaur. Because it is now beyond our comprehension, out of context, from another time. Like the steady revolving of the earth or the quiet hum of electricity, the basic realization of the presence of something churning is there but only comes into the sense when it is permitted, invited. Not on a daily basis, not as we live our lives, participate in economic exchanges, conduct matters of business.

But did you feel it when the churning has slowed, stopped, started, and now bumps gracelessly along? We are still rotating, spinning, but we are getting vertigo now.

 When we start talking about long-term solutions to create a viable, sustainable future, how is it possible not to see that system as a relic? [This royal “we” is not meant to put words in your mouth or to broadly assume anything about you, gentle reader, I swear.]

Capitalism, especially with the rapid advancement of the remote revolution and a vast change in the nature of the marketplace, production, and consumption is bound to experience challenges from a new generation—not necessarily a new generation (as in Y) of people, but more in the sense of a generational shift—a new era where the consensus reflects values that are less driven by capitalism and more by social capital.

Is it not clear yet that this is an economic system that can only thrive in the total absence of awareness of resource depletion? It is increasingly difficult—damn near impossible, in fact—to admit with full confidence that capitalism and sustainability can co-exist.

Before any vast societal change there must be a period of complete resetting. The crumbling walls of the old fortresses have to be ground down to stones, pebbles, sand, then dust before anything new can be built to replace them. And throughout the building process, many are left displaced, unsteady. It is inevitable. But things work themselves out… it just takes resetting and readjusting, shifting from history to projection.

This post is providing a critique of our current system more than it is making some explicit claim about capitalism in general. It is being suggesting that it is growing outdated—however, what realistic alternatives are there that can be implemented immediately?

Before you go pegging me as a socialist or whatever term Rush uses these days—remember that this is for the purposes of speculation; there is no coup being brought upon capitalism, no adamant screams to send it to the guillotine, but there are some serious questions about retiring it. It just won’t work for sustainability.

If capitalism is not the ideal economic model for the coming shift in the nature of production and consumption due to the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) and Remote Revolution and all of the other unimaginable, historic changes, then what is?

ICT, Sustainability, and the Rebound Effect

It’s impossible to argue against the concept that information and communications technologies (ICT) has revolutionized nearly every aspect of the lives of those living in developed, affluent nations. 

Certainly the arguments about whether these alterations in the current state of our (less-than sustainability-minded) economy, modes of production, manners and nature of communicating, and general process of understanding our place in the global network are varied and equally heated. Some contend that ICT has spawned the greatest revolution in production and consumption since the discovery of fire whereas others see the mass, rapid advancement in technology to be moving forward too quickly for us to process responsibly. Actually, I think most of us rotate between these two poles of belief and perhaps that’s the most responsible way to consider ICT anyway… 

While many of the arguments I make here hinge on the ultimate possibilities offered by ICT as a whole, I realize that there are certain explicit problems that are far too often ignored, especially by those who tend to view technology as a panacea to the world’s problems. I tend to fall into that rose-tinted glasses category myself, so I understand. But without a doubt, there are gaping holes in theory of the global salve of tech—and unfortunately, these problems are related to the same issues that so often cause me to herald the glories of ICT and its positive role in reshaping commuting and consumption patterns in the first place; sustainability.

The notion of the “rebound effect” as it relates to the explosion of widely available technologies and the associated impact on sustainability has been receiving a great deal of attention lately, although the idea has been around for decades. One of the most thorough explanations of the rebound effect and ICT (and one that happens to relate to a topic that is of interest for the Remote Revolution; distributed workplaces) is provided in the 2004 book by Harrison, Wheeler, and Whitehead called, not surprisingly, “Distributed Work” (Taylor and Francis). 

Using sustainability in technology as a springboard to launch their ideas about the possibilities of distributed workplaces, the authors suggest that “although new technology enables production to occur with reduced resource consumption per unit, the subsequent increased availability of products and services stimulates demand, thus increasing resource use overall. These factors are known as the rebound effect.”

While you’re likely to find other succinct definitions of the rebound effect scattered throughout the literature in nearly every field of study (ecology, population studies, economics, etc) I find the speculative thrust of their theories compelling, disturbing, and spot-on correct.

In essence though, what this rebound effect means is that with advancement and efficiency comes increased demand, which does not cure the initial problem of consumption—an issue that the wide availability of ICT was supposed to remedy in the first place.

Harrison, Wheeler, and Whitehead go on to provide examples of the rebound effect of ICT, suggesting that mobile technologies has created an unexpected side-demand for actual travel because the very nature of instant communication allows us to arrange meetings and leave the work site, no matter where that might be. They state that as a system, remote work’s ability to enable work from anywhere while still being linked into their networks by proxy creates a situation where the worker can be mobile while working. In other words, according to the rebound effect, telework necessitates travel and new ways of physically and geographically expanding outward, just in different ways than might have existed before the advent of mobile working arrangements.

Additionally, there are larger issues of consumption and production—what about the wide availability of computers, netbooks, mobile devices? Higher demand creates increased production, which then leads to use, which itself lends to its own different but nonetheless sinister polluting side-effects.

It’s a Catch-22 here.

And frankly, I do not pretend to have any solution—not even a proposal for one. Is it true that as a society, when considering sustainability we’re going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils? I wonder as well, unless the economy as we know it—the global economy, not just the grossly ethnocentric Western one—is completely toppled, if we are simply doomed by this endless cycle of demand, production, consumption, pollution. What I mean to say by that is simply, “is technology—ICT—simply the new commodity that we will use to justify a tired economic system that works against all of our lofty goals of sustainability?”

Great. Now my head hurts.

I like this quote from the “Distributed Workplace” book about sustainability and ICT because it sums up quite perfectly the limitless sense of distress and hopelessness I sometimes feel when considering whether or not there are any solutions at this point—at least in the macro sense:

Sustainability needs to be seen as a dynamic process, not a fixed and attainable state. It is rather like the mathematical concept of a limit—an end point that does not exist as such, and cannot be reached, but represents the hypothetical end point of a tendency

(Harrison, Wheeler, & Whitehead, 2004).

Thoughts? I want to know what you think as I kick off a week discussing the concept of distributed workplaces and more specific ICT-related issues.

Because We Both Know It Needs to Be Said. The Tacky Side of Telework.

Okay, so no more putting this off.

I have to get this off my chest now or I’ll never be able to go on and intelligently discuss work-life balance. I won’t be able to discuss that in the context of important developments in technology and distributed work arrangements, and satellite centers (these were to be the topic today instead of this) because I’ll keep feeling like I need to say something about working from home. And each time I type the phrase “work from home” I feel that I lose credibility.

Why do I feel like I lose credibility by using the phrase “work from home” in a sentence? Because I do. If someone stumbled on this blog and saw those words, if they were hip to the relentless scams using that same keyword phrase, they'd hightail it elsewhere.

Why? Becase there is a tacky side to talking about telework. 

And I know you know what I’m talking about

You know those ads and marketing materials that glorify the work-at-home and make a million while playing with your kids every five minutes (and making dinner and cleaning since after all, you’re still home, even if you’re “working” right?)… These are ridiculous ideas promoted by predatory companies with motivations that have zero to do with helping workers better juggle their work and family responsibilities. They are selling something—nothing more. Because plenty of people are buying. 

Why are people buying? Because such crap appeals to the most base of human instincts when it comes to working—not having to bother with social trivialities, not having to get up on punch a clock and be lorded over, etc..

These sources prey on the feelings of helplessness, the sense of being without autonomy, the crushing strain of feeling one is not able to experience life to the fullest because of a position that demands one’s soul. These sources shamelessly prey on those trapped in a difficult work situation that leaves them drained and without ample time for family and friends. There are the worst kinds of predators in my opinion, and their numbers seem to be growing.

Frankly, when it comes to RemoteRevolution,  I am not concerned with the personal daily habits or problems of individual remote workers right now—my mission here is to discuss the larger-scale implications, developments, theories, ideas…not to glorify or worship remote work for individuals who are in such restraining work environments. Because I don’t. I’ll leave the rest of this discussion to others who do a far better job of exposing these schemes and offer a realistic, balanced presentation of what it truly means to be a remote worker. Because it’s not all roses, that’s for sure.

I want to clearly distance myself from that element within the topic of remote work that defines the tasteless, the unrealistic, the predatory, the short-sighted.

I see remote work as a critical part of a possible solution to many of our greatest environmental, societal and economic woes, not as a personal fix for a lack of foul work-life balance for an individual worker.

The books and websites that sell the dream are correct about one thing--yes, you can work in your pajamas, and yes, you can go for days on end without ever fixing your hair or taking a shower, for that matter. You can totally let your personal hygiene slide. Great. That’s gross, but whatever floats your boat.

When you get right down to it, the tradeoff for these relatively minor releases from the everyday commuting world are astounding and rarely covered in the materials looking to feed people’s desires to work without a supervisor, without a commute, and in the comfort of one’s own home.

There is a big tradeoff. While this blog is dedicated to exploring the benefits of remote work, I want to make it clear that this is being promoted for large reasons—for sustainability, for positive environmental change, for a much-needed alteration in traditional work systems that are no longer necessary due to developments in information and communications technologies (ICTs) and the knowledge versus production economy that has already emerged and already dominates.

Ever since this blog started I’ve been trying to find ways to get around the “tacky” side of telecommuting and I have decided that since I can’t, I am just going to devote one full post to the issue and leave it at that. As the topic emerges in other posts, to make myself feel better about things (if nothing else)

Despite the extraordinary degree of flexibility telecommuting offers, it is by no means a guaranteed solution for creating a sense of work-life balance. For many, once the novelty of working outside of the office wears off, there are a host of challenges to confront as an entirely new set of issues involving the combination of work and life emerge. This is particularly true for those who are tasked with child or elder care responsibilities.

It is hard. It takes a vast, long series of adjustments for the worker as well as that worker’s family and friends. Remote work is not for everyone and these are but a few reasons why that is.

This post will be a reference spot for when I discuss larger-scale topics related to work-life balance issues, alternative work arrangements, and other topics that emerge that require a disclaimer.

I am going to go on this week to talk about the future of working environments and will be discussing some of the problems many have with working exclusively in the home. I will be looking at the work of some innovators who are creating new spaces within the hybrid spaces—places for people to work and communicate.

But yes, this all had to be said first.