On Society and Sustainability

I wrote this as part of a university course in IT sustainability, it's been translated from the original Swedish text.

How Come We're Unsustainable?

Unsustainable systems often arise at random. Not all systems can be sustainable at birth, and many sustainable systems in turn depend entirely on their less sustainable predecessors. Fossil fuels, for example, have been a necessity for developing the technology we now use for fossil-free energy sources. In this way, many unsustainable systems are practically deterministic—for humanity to develop sustainable energy solutions, we must utilize fossil fuels. There is no shortcut directly to sustainable energy. From this perspective, it is difficult to argue that the problem stems from the development and use of unsustainable systems, largely because the argument alludes to completely fabricated fantasy of how the world looked in the past. Was Roman concrete not at least as unsustainable as the modern alternative? Can we truly say that our technology today is less sustainable than that used in the 1300s? There are 20 times more people on Earth today than there were then—would 14th-century technology have held up?

The central crux of sustainability is that an unsustainable system often remains invisible until something catastrophic happens (the Romans also had unsustainable systems—the Roman Empire fell). It is obviously possible to analyze and question existing systems; sometimes we can even clearly label them as unsustainable. But often, the opposing forces are strong enough that labels alone are insufficient to create change. The natural question that I asked as part of this was, of course: "why hasn’t the climate catastrophe created change?"—after all, a whole slew of natural disasters directly linked to the climate have occurred.

Who’s Afraid of Green Energy?

We live in a world where power is held by a few individuals. The idea is that democratic power systems ensure no one can rule autocratically, but we have limited democracy to apply only to political power systems. Slowly but surely, those in power have managed to introduce loopholes which retain their power—not by becoming prime ministers or presidents, but through lobbying, threats, and propaganda (after World War II, many propaganda producers went straight to private companies as marketing experts). Power over both global and local societies has increasingly shifted into the hands of a few billionaires who now do everything to anchor themselves to power. They anchor society to systems that guarantee the retention of their power. If burning fossil fuels made you rich, why change what works? Of course, this too is a fantasy; no one can hide from climate change, and a system cannot remain in status quo forever.

The Role of Digitalization

How digital systems factor into the climate issue is a topic one can debate fervently. Technology tends to be viewed in a positive light—it is very easy to compare a life with technological aids to a (often imaginary) life without them and conclude that technology is pretty neat, all things considered. At the same time, there is a growing group wishing to return to some vaguely defined utopia (often around 70 years back, but sometimes as far back as ancient times), often to directly avoid certain types of technology. The compromise between these is that technology—instead of having a direct positive or negative effect—acts as a multiplier of existing structures and goals, a sort of Balatro-joker* for society.

I like this compromise. Technological tools, especially for transmitting and sharing information (technical tools that transmit information are sometimes called information media), have an accelerating effect but are not inherently positive or negative. A hammer can be used to drive a nail, kill a zombie (in your zombie movie of preference), or do the same to a human—the result depends on how you choose to use it. Similarly, Gutenberg’s printing press could produce nationalist propaganda or copies of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

Our political structures are rigid and difficult to change quickly; they are rarely prepared for technology that changes the landscape as rapidly as digitalization did. Above all, they are more efficient at certain things than others. When the digital era first left its mark on society, some things happened earlier than others:

The amount of information disseminated skyrocketed.
Products were created specializing in finding and delivering information to human consumers.
Companies selling these systems became extremely profitable.

With the exception of the ongoing AI wave, the vast majority of the world’s most valuable companies today specialize in one thing: delivering digital information. Google and Facebook were founded to organize and spread digital information to the right people. Apple and Microsoft create the computers and systems that let you consume this information. Amazon, Saudi Aramco, and Berkshire Hathaway stand out as the only top-10 companies not working to elevate the digital society (as of March 12th, 2025).

The result for society has been isolation. Social media has fundamentally altered how, why, and where people meet. Gathering places have fallen silent, emptied, and closed. Shopping malls (natural habitat of goth girls and EPA-raggare** alike) are increasingly considered ancient ruins as online shopping becomes the new norm. Exactly how we solve the isolation problem—14% of young people in the UK report feeling lonely most of the time***— is something I unfortunately have no clear answer for. Personally, I have chosen to prioritize small moments of community, the kind that let you get to know each other more personally. On a societal level, a struggling economy certainly doesn’t help, but I don’t believe it’s the driving factor.

The digital revolution has proven to lead to the same result as the industrial revolution—we have entered a new Gilded Age, where new technology has given private interests a head start, and our sociopolitical systems have failed to catch up. Sooner or later, we will catch up, but it might take a while. Perhaps too long.

Where Are We Headed?

We are moving toward a place that is uncomfortable to think about, and we are moving at breakneck speed. Two-thirds of Earth’s identified boundaries have been crossed. Los Angeles is in flames. Three years ago, Pakistan flooded so severely it was visible from space. Even here in Sweden things look bleak. Increased immigration and welfare systems no longer equipped to handle poverty (after being thoroughly hollowed out by spineless "social-democrats" and disastrous conservative governments) have led to a violent far-right wave worryingly reminiscent of that of the Weimar Republic. We cannot close the border to climate refugees—they have no home to return to, and the rest of Europe is as xenophobic as we are.

With this in mind, it is easy to want to flee from reality. Looking ahead and seeing only ones own demise is possibly one of the most distressing emotions a human can experience. Instead, I propose a kind of unreasonable optimism—when the brain wants to flee, we must let the heart lead (something we scientists are often bad at). In Slavoj Žižek’s Living in the End Times, which I've been enjoying recently, a possible path forward is highlighted:

Ward-Perkins’s book confirms two old insights: first, that all history is a history of the present; second, that our understanding of actual history always implies a (hidden or not) reference to alternate history—what “really happened” is perceived against the background of what might have happened, and this alternate possibility is offered as the path we should follow today.

– Living in the End Times, Slavoj Žižek

What would society look like if Exxon in the 1970s had listened to its own scientists and started investing in fossil-free alternatives earlier? What would the world look like if the Bush administration hadn’t censored climate data for the U.S. Senate? What if John Sununu hadn’t sabotaged the Toronto-goal in Noordwijk? We will find the way forward by first looking back—some paths only reveal themselves after taking a few steps in the wrong direction.

Footnotes

* In the game Balatro, joker cards multiply the value of your other cards.

** EPA raggare refers to a Swedish subculture centered around modified vintage cars.

*** Centre for Social Justice. (2024). Lonely Nation – Ending loneliness among older people (pg 13). https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/lonely-nation-part-2