GLOBAL CHALLENGES

Internet vs. Sneakernet: The No-Tech, Low-Tech Option

Joe Maglitta | Date: 06-19-09 | Comments

Sometimes the smartest technology path may be the one not taken. A low-tech, no-tech approach that cuts costs, saves energy and frees precious resources for truly high-payoff technology initiatives?

Table of Contents:

Internet vs. Sneakernet: The No-Tech, Low-Tech Option - Mrs. Cleaver Would Be Right at Home Here

Mrs. Cleaver Would Be Right at Home Here

Here are a couple more interesting examples of no-tech/low-tech thinking:

The Walking School Bus. You gotta love this one. Basically, a bunch of school children walking to school with one or more adults, parents or volunteers. What will they think of next? Good for the environment AND preventing chunky children. Variation: the bicycle train. Cheap, fun, healthy, no smelly, gas-sucking diesel buses.

Less mobile phone use. Cover your ears, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon. Limiting cell phone time is not just for nagging �rents anymore. According to some estimates, making and using cell phones is the biggest energy suck in the world today. Let�s go back to Low-tech mag (where you�ll find lots of other fun examples, as well its engaging sister pub, No Tech): They note the cell phone user is expected to have 35 (!) phones in his life!

Around half of the energy use of the mobile phone network is attributed to the production of the phones. � The high energy consumption of the mobile phone network is mainly due to the limited life span of the phones. ...

The mobile telephone infrastructure also consumes more energy than the fixed phone infrastructure. According to a Swiss study dating from December 2004, transmitting information over a mobile network costs 3 times more energy than over a fixed network (including the extra copper and fibre glass used by the fixed phone network).

"The transfer of one gigabit of information (around 500 minutes of calls) corresponds to the energy use of driving a car for 200 kilometres or 125 miles" The amount of energy used is not small: during its lifetime a mobile phone equals an average energy consumption of 260 megajoules (MJ) � 180 MJ for the manufacturing and 80 MJ for the usage phase. 260 MJ is enough to power 1,200 60- watt light bulbs for one hour.

They suggest greater use of landlines and other mobile alternatives. Not to bum you out completely:

The energy consumption of electronic devices is skyrocketing, as was recently reported by the International Energy Association ("Gadgets and Gigawatts"). According to the research paper, the electricity consumption of computers, cell phones, flat-screen TVs, iPods and other gadgets will double by 2022 and triple by 2030. This comes down to the need for an additional 280 gigawatts of power generation capacity. An earlier report from the British Energy Saving Trust (The Ampere Strikes Back - pdf) came to similar conclusions.

In health care, bunches of studies over the last few years have shown that simple no-tech steps like cleaning with bleach have nearly miraculous results reducing the incidence of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic resistance.

Make no mistake: The impulse isn�t anti-technology. It�s for smarter use of technology. In fact, some of the more intriguing ideas involve clever use of new and old technology, as in these computerized sailing ships described in a recent issue of Tree Hugger magazine. Not more technology, but smarter.

And this is why IT vendors needn�t fear this impulse. It�s counterintuitive, but think: All vendors want successful implementations with big results, right? By helping customers tackle only the highest payoff initiatives, they boost chances of everyone�s success. It�s a win-win.

Economies Must Meet in the Middle

A final thought. There�s an interesting paradox about the low-tech/no-tech approach:

For heavily industrialized economies, ironically, �smart� technology use in this context means taking another look at the ways and means of less developed economies that rely on human power, wind and other more basic mechanical technologies.

At the same time, developing economies, especially the poorest, with limited resources, must carefully choose the technologies with the biggest payoffs as they evolve toward their more advanced nations. Less of a worry here; people far smarter than I are devoting their lives to this.

Undoubtedly developed and developing worlds have much to teach the other in maximizing resources.

Low-tech/no-tech isn�t a blanket strategy. It makes good sense in some areas, not in others. So fluff the pigeon, lace up those Keds, and start thinking about where less tech could mean more.