No, I haven’t embraced Maoism; I’m talking about revolutions brought about by science and technology. These may have far-reaching social consequences, but by and large do not involve public self-criticism. But they do have one feature in common with social revolutions: they are often opposed by established intellectual elites.
The doctrine of sustainability has at its heart the concept of continuity, that things may develop but along a steady path, so that future generations live in a society which relies on the same key assets and resources as today. While this has a degree of truth in it, in many ways the lives of current generations have been shaped by a series of revolutions, the consequences of which were unforeseeable at the time.
In 1800, the Industrial Revolution was still transforming society. From a starting point in the UK, its ripples were beginning to transform societies in both the Old and New Worlds. This revolution was built on coal. Until then, the motive power for industry and agriculture came from water, wind or muscle, with wood for heating and cooking, but primarily a building material. The ability to deliver concentrated energy wherever and whenever it was needed transformed society’s productive capacity and thus society itself.
This transformation had its problems, as all revolutions do. Blake’s ‘dark Satanic mills’ hit a chord which still resonates today. But steam power and factory work did not take people from a bucolic Eden into an urban Hell. Life for the majority rural population was hard, as it is for subsistence farmers the world over. One set of trials was swapped for another. The appalling conditions endured by many were brought to public attention by Dickens and other Victorian writers and the long-term improvement of working class living conditions was begun.
The plight of the English working class also famously caught the attention of Engels and Marx, who argued that only a revolution would transform the world so that workers received a fair reward for their labour. But while Marxism inspired momentous changes in Russia, China and elsewhere, the obviousness of such social revolution was invalidated by the enormous advances made possible as scientific discoveries were made and technologies developed and applied.
It is sometimes difficult to define where incremental change ends and revolution starts. The Industrial Revolution itself spawned a transport revolution with the rapid expansion of passenger railways from a standing start only 200 years ago. Medicine has made continual advances, but arguably the discovery of antibiotics represents a revolutionary change, making infectious killer diseases almost a thing of the past over the course of just a few decades.
Nearer to our own experience, the development of information and communications technology has given us what may best be thought of as the Connectedness Revolution. The communications part could be seen as a natural progression from letters, the telegraph and the telephone, but the constant access not just to people but to knowledge and services over the last 20 or so years has revolutionised the way we live.
The benefits of the Internet, computers and mobile phones are well recognised and happily accepted by the great majority in society. But this is not the case with all technologies and why I think the case for continuous revolution has to be made. Two of the most important underlying sectors of the economy – arguably the two most important for society as a whole – are under attack from groups who distrust science and technology, at least in the hands of private industry. Important advances in energy and agriculture are under threat.
The focus on renewable energy, which was largely supplanted during the Industrial Revolution and in its current manifestations is unsuited to the needs of a modern society, takes effort away from the development of efficient, large-scale energy storage systems, the next generation of solar harvesting technologies and the development of improved nuclear and other novel sources of energy.
The focus on naturalness and organic agriculture, niche as it may be, is a key factor in the barrier to the use of genetic modification to provide breakthroughs in, for example, stress-tolerant crops which cannot be bred conventionally. This anti-biotechnology bias is in danger also of upsetting or delaying what could be the next major revolution, synthetic biology. Often, in an effort to prevent hypothetical harm, real benefits are blocked.
In today’s highly precautionary environment, we should not forget that humans have become the dominant species through innovation and adaptability. It has sometimes been a case of two steps forward and one step back, but continuous progress has been made and care for the environment has become more of a priority as we have become more prosperous.
If technological progress is blocked, we will not be able to meet the needs of a growing and developing population, which is a recipe for disaster. We have to be prepared to recognise and tackle the problems which come with new technologies rather than try to avoid them. The siren voices of reaction must be countered. Long live the revolution!
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB22 4LX
___________________________________________________