The Tyranny of Convenience

Woman & tablet - Shutterstock.jpg

Columbia law professor Tim Wu is worried about what he calls "the tyranny of convenience"—very worried, in fact. He believes that "convenience is the most underestimated and least understood force in the world today." Leaving aside the caveat that roughly a billion people still spend most of their day gathering water and firewood, Wu is surely onto something. We catch glimpses of it when we fret about our dependency on smart phones, or when we switch on the seat-warmers in our SUVs, or when we ponder the irony of curing couch-potato obesity with vast rows of stationary, TV-equipped cardio machines.

Treadmills - Participaction.jpg

Professor Wu dates the convenience revolution from the 1950s, when Jetsons-styled dreams of fast food, moving sidewalks and disposable commodities first came into view. The Sixties ethos of nonconformity stunted this first formation, he argues, only to usher in a second and more durable version in the 1970s—a paradigm shift symbolized by the Sony Walkman. "If the first convenience revolution promised to make life and work easier for you, the second promised to make it easier to be you," Wu observes. "The new technologies were catalysts of selfhood. They conferred efficiency on self-expression." Like many of us, Wu agonizes about the impact of Amazon, Facebook, iTunes and the habits of selfish gratification they appear to reinforce. But his disappointingly tepid prescriptive advice—that we "reflect on the tyranny of convenience, try more often to resist its stupefying power, and see what happens"—remains that of the committed Luddite. Build your own birdhouse, bake from scratch, get a push mower. "Embrace the inconvenient," he urges.

The flaw in Wu's formulation is historical. We might think of the 1950s as the epochal moment in the history of labour-saving efficiency. But, in fact, the modernist philosophical critique of the tyranny of convenience came much earlier—and it neither underestimated nor misunderstood the threat.

E.M. Forster - IMDb.jpg

One key text is E.M. Forster's short story The Machine Stopswhich was published in 1909 and drew on the even earlier prophetic fiction of H.G. Wells. In Forster's day, roughly a third of the labor force in the West worked on farms, and another third were industrial workers. His was not an era, in other words, in which armies of sedentary service workers spent their days moving numbers around on screens. Yet Forster could plainly see what was coming. His protagonist in The Machine Stops, Vashti, spends her days and nights alone in an austere room wired with technological wonders. "There were buttons and switches everywhere—buttons to call for food, for music, for clothing. There was the button that produced literature, and there were of course the buttons by which she communicated with her friends. The room, though it contained nothing, was in touch with all that she cared for in the world." Vashti communicates with her family and friends using a technology recognizable to us as Skype. "The round plate that she held in her hands began to glow. A faint blue light shot across it, darkening to purple, and presently she could see the image of her son, who lived on the other side of the earth, and he could see her." As a public intellectual, Vashti tries to imagine European society before it was transformed by communications technology, but she can't really fathom it because the primal force animating her own life is an immobilizing fear of the outside world. "She had studied the civilization that had immediately preceded her own—the civilization that had mistaken the functions of the system, and had used it for bringing people to things, instead of for bringing things to people." When her son asks her to travel by airship to see him in person, she recoils at the idea.

We are rightly dazzled, more than a century later, by E.M. Forster's technological prescience. But even more prophetic was his reckoning of the profound social and psychological impoverishment that would occur en route from the gritty reality of his own world, that of Edwardian Britain, to the virtual reality of Vashti's. For twenty-first-century readers, the most chilling line in The Machine Stops is also the most familiar."Vashti was seized with the terrors of direct experience." Forster's fable illuminates, in short, what Professor Wu has perceived only through a glass darkly. The true tyranny of convenience lies in its capacity to alter our experience of the world so completely that we can neither comprehend what has been lost in achieving it, nor imagine how we could survive without it.

Canada's Orwellian Climate Politics

Writing in today's Globe and Mail, SFU professor of sustainable energy Mark Jaccard observes that successive Canadian prime ministers up to and including Justin Trudeau have adopted an "Orwellian" approach to climate and energy policy. What he means by this is that our leaders routinely commit themselves to international emissions-reduction targets they know their policies cannot achieve. This makes the policies, if not the leaders themselves, "dishonest." Jaccard pillories the Trudeau government for approving the Trans Mountain pipeline project, and lauds B.C. premier John Horgan's policy of principled resistance. "National studies by independent researchers (including my university-based group) consistently show that Mr. Trudeau's 2015 Paris promise of a 30-per-cent reduction by 2030 is unachievable with oil sands expansion," Jaccard argues. "His staff know this, so he knows it, too."

Over a thirty-year career that has included stints with the IPCC, Professor Jaccard has dedicated his research program to the goal of what might be called politically-achievable sustainability. In 2016, for example, he posed the question, "Is Win-Win Possible? Can Canada’s Government Achieve Its Paris Commitment... and Get Re-elected?" If you accept the premise that CO2 emissions pose an existential threat to humanity and that aggressive unilateral decarbonization should guide Canadian energy policy, then presumably you regard Jaccard's work as both noble and indispensable. You likely also share his frustration. "Orwell once suggested that politicians be required to publicly admit their untruths—at the moment they utter them. When it comes to Canada's climate-versus-pipeline battle, this would be a great idea."

Professor Jaccard is dead right about Canada's Orwellian climate and energy policies—but for all the wrong reasons. What is objectionable about the pattern of dishonesty Jaccard has identified is that Canadian politicians no longer represent abroad what used to be called the national interest. It is true that prime ministers Mulroney, Chrétien, Harper and Trudeau all "failed to immediately implement the regulations and carbon prices necessary to achieve their promises," as Jaccard notes. But they did so precisely because they knew that Canadian voters would not abide them—the same Canadian voters who have besieged Justin Trudeau with their experiences of fuel poverty (see the video clip above); who agree with climate scientist James Hansen and economist Bjorn Lomborg that meeting the Paris targets will cost trillions of dollars and have little impact on future global temperatures; who appreciate Trudeau's own boast that "no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there" (see the video clip below); who are frustrated that Canadian oil is selling at a massive discount due to self-imposed transportation bottlenecks; who resent the bungled energy policies of their provincial governments (Ontarians in particular); who are tired of guilt-inducing global-warming media hysteria; and, above all, who are sick of sanctimonious environmentalists telling them how often they should vacation, or how much meat they should eat, or how many kids they should have. The problem for Canadian politicians who make "dishonest" promises at COP conferences, in short, is not that they lack the imagination or the political will to sell them to obdurate voters back home. It is that the promises are dishonest.

All of this said, Professor Jaccard's piece could not have come at a better time. With the Trans Mountain controversy approaching fever pitch, and politicians, editorialists and lobbyists everywhere jockeying for position on carbon taxes, a genuine debate on what is achievable politically—which is to say, a debate that puts the national interest back in the climate/ energy conversation—is long overdue.