Some Comments on Nate Hagens' Goldilocks Technology

This is a comment on Nate Hagens’ video Goldilocks Technology - A Preliminary Checklist. If you’re not familiar with Nate Hagens’ work, I strongly recommend exploring it, starting with his foundational mini-documentary The Great Simplification.

Dear Nate, let me first applaud the introduction of the “Goldilocks technology” concept. This framework offers much-needed nuance and provides an elegant rebuttal to those who meet techno-criticism with simplistic arguments like “so you want to go back to the middle ages?” For far too long, we’ve been told that development only moves in one direction, that more and faster is always better, and that questioning this narrative means advocating for a life devoid of technology. That is, of course, false.

In your video, you presented a preliminary checklist and invited further suggestions and comments. Here are mine.

A preliminary checklist - continued

1. Repairable and maintainable

This point should be fairly obvious, and I’m somewhat surprised it didn’t make it to the initial list. As I see it, Goldilocks technology must be designed with repairability and maintainability in mind.

While this correlates with reduced complexity in general, even at a given “complexity level,” engineers and designers can make conscious decisions to improve or worsen the situation. These choices include making disassembly straightforward, using standardized and ubiquitous components whenever possible and designing for understandability.

An example of the opposite stance is the idea of “maintenance-free” materials. Maintenance-free often means unmaintainable. It’s advertised to the consumer as a benefit, but it represents a significant loss if we seek longevity. Nothing lasts forever, but with regular maintenance, we can approach this ideal. With “maintenance-free” the ideal is made impossible by design.

Policies for repairability have been promoted within the European Union under the parole “Right to Repair”. I really hope it will gain momentum rather than diminish. As a cultural phenomenon, repairing and tinkering provides an opportunity for attracting new groups of people into the sustainability movement.

2. Adaptable to local contexts and changing needs

As a corollary to the previous point: ensuring that products are maintainable also enables customization wherever and whenever necessary. A piece of technology may almost fit the bill in some context, except for some minor detail. Perhaps an adapter is needed, another shaft, or maybe the enclosure is just slightly too wide. If the technology is modularized or otherwise designed with disassembly in mind, users have higher chance of being able to successfully adapt it to their specific needs.

Circumstances change over time. To avoid premature obsolescence, we should be able to upgrade or modify our products when needed. An obvious example is that of consumer electronics: a laptop computer might need more memory or storage as software requirements increase, or its battery might need replacement after years of use (my next laptop will be from Framework, but hopefully not for a while).

Another valuable trait would be if the technology affords or enables repurposing. This is also helped by a tinker-friendly design that allows for creative reuse, though it may depend even more on the cultural acceptance and trends.

3. Emitting quality and craftsmanship

My partner’s grandfather may not have been a carpenter, but he crafted many things out of wood with care and love. We’ve inherited some of these artifacts, including a homemade rocking dog which my son has used. I know with certainty that this will be treasured for generations to come. The craftsmanship speaks through every detail.

Quality watches are another prime example of this, as are certain pieces of furniture and well-built houses. The more an item is infused with quality and craftsmanship, the higher the probability that it will be cared for rather than discarded or replaced on a whim. There’s no inherent reason preventing washing machines or dishwashers from exhibiting these same traits of quality. The same could be said for home servers or reliable robot vacuum cleaners that just keep working year after year.

This might sound idealistic, but what’s truly absurd is how we’ve collectively accepted the practice of discarding our modern smartphones — these near-magical devices — every couple of years without question.

Comments on the profit equation

On the demand side, you suggest that consumer values must shift to change the equation. While I agree that cultural change is necessary, we must honestly examine the structures that shape our culture and behavior. To put it bluntly: if we want to eliminate mindless and destructive consumerism, we must confront the advertising industry that works relentlessly day in and day out to do one thing: to shape our behavior and our culture.

Regarding costs, I agree that externalities in general must be better reflected in prices. However, we must also recognize the limitations of this approach. There are things that simply defy quantification yet we would all agree are essential to a good life and society. To be frank - there are things I don’t even want to bring into the realm of quantification. Furthermore, reducing complex realities to a one-dimensional price value inevitably destroys information. Such information reduction allows harmful practices to continue as long as they’re “offset” by compensation elsewhere, which is exactly what we see today. We need something better.

Instead of solely focusing on the two sides of the profit equation with the hope of “controlling and steering” profit-optimizers, I propose a third way: removing profit from the equation entirely. How? The answer already exists in the numerous not-for-profit businesses operating worldwide today. These organizations sell products and services on local and global markets and pay competitive salaries, but operate with a public good purpose enshrined in their legal structure. While they must still make sound business decisions to cover costs and fund development, they’re liberated from the relentless pressure of profit maximization.

We could gradually transition toward wiser, more humble organizations capable of making truly holistic decisions. After all, any organization that ultimately reduces its decision making to a single number — profit — is by design limited in its capacity to make the wise decisions that our world so desperately needs.

Note: I will write more about the Not-for-Profit Economy in posts to come. Please stay tuned and feel free to reach out with questions or comments. Also see Beyond Profit for more information.