Antisocial innovation risks extinction

Of course, technology has rescued its beneficiaries from hardship and starvation, has enabled improved living conditions for many around the globe, has been the principal driver of human ‘progress’ in terms of advances in all aspects of human life, has often facilitated democracy and liberty, and has led to immense material gains. At the same time, it also has left us with significant negative consequences. To begin with a general point, new technologies brought about since the first industrial revolution have severely impacted on our environment – in the form of air, water, soil and other types of pollution and by depleting a broad range of natural resources (mainly as a result of industrial-scale agriculture, mining, water usage for industry and consumption of fossil fuels, all of which have been enabled by advancements in technology). Individual examples such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the insecticide DDT, nuclear (weapon) technologies and plastics aside, leading scientists estimate that the probability of human extinction before the year 2100 is around 50%, based on the possibility of a malicious or accidental release of destructive technology – or simply because the pace of technological change outstrips our ability to control it (Rees, 2003). The Centre for the Study of Existential Risks at the University of Cambridge is primarily concerned about ‘risks associated with human technology and activity, such as nuclear war, engineered pandemic, climate change, ecological collapse, or advanced artificial intelligence’.

Taking a look at the looming climate meltdown, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently issued its 6th Assessment Report – where a Working Group II report finds that human-induced climate change has already caused widespread adverse (and in part irreversible) impacts for nature (in the form of a critical loss of biodiversity) and people – with the most vulnerable people and systems disproportionately affected and half of the world’s current population (around 3.5 billion people) living in areas ‘highly vulnerable’ to climate change. Limiting temperature rise to no more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels therefore constitutes a ‘critical level’ beyond which the impacts of the climate crisis accelerate strongly and become increasingly irreversible (IPCC, 02/2022). However, the Working Group III report warns that ‘[w]ithout a strengthening of policies beyond those that are implemented by the end of 2020, GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are projected to rise beyond 2025, leading to a median global warming of 3.2 [2.2 to 3.5] °C by 2100’ (IPCC, 04/2022). Given continued reliance on fossil fuels, the group found that exceeding 1.5C is ‘almost inevitable’, and suggests ‘negative emissions’ technologies (such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or direct air capture) are likely to be necessary. The problem is that such technologies are often experimental and are likely to involve interventions with the potential for unforeseen consequences – while on the other hand, there is no time to take a pre-cautionary approach.

The sad story of climate change then is emblematic for a common narrative on the impact of modern technology: developed to serve human needs and wants, technologies are applied in ways which have a tendency to produce (at times predictable, at times unforeseeable) severe consequences – here in form of global warming, largely due to CO2 emissions resulting from energy-intensive technology production and consumption patterns. While market mechanisms usually allocate the benefits of technology to those with sufficient means (whose economic potency usually also has the most say in what technologies will be developed), negative impacts often primarily affect the poor. Industrialisation and the technologies it brought about have allowed the global North to develop and, while reaping the benefits of technological progress, colonise most of the remaining ‘other’. Climate change as one of the principal consequences, however, is predominantly felt in the global South and among other peoples on this planet too poor to even attempt to protect themselves against the ensuing climate disasters by means of ‘adaptation technologies’. This reveals another common reflex at play: current humanity’s default response to an identified problem with technology is to rely on ‘better’ technology to fix that ‘glitch’. There is of course nothing wrong in aiming to improve technological solutions, but how can we be so sure that these improved technologies actually are solutions, and not primarily part of the problem? Looking at our track-record over the centuries since industrialisation and the consequences of large-scale deployment of technologies, there is little to suggest that fighting the fire caused by such deployments with fire that again relies on technology will all of a sudden no longer have the side effects which got us into this mess in the first place. In the age of the Anthropocene (where human conduct is the main determinant for the fate of life on Earth), past experience suggests we cannot afford a ‘trial and error’ approach in deploying technology at a scale to save us from the problems earlier technologies have created.

In sum then, based on our historical experience there is no reason to believe that coming up with new technologies and propagating them around the globe for widespread use (at least by those who can afford access to them) will necessarily enhance our welfare, let alone that of other species on this planet. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that, by and large, our use and abuse of technology is a – if not the – principal cause of most of the essential risks to our survival on this planet. That should call into question IP’s uncritical embracing of ‘technological innovation’ as well as its ‘transfer and dissemination’. One might add that to the extent IP incentivises technological development and transfer, as a system, it is normative and political as well, in that IP continuously pushes humanity towards technology and technological solutions (rather than alternative ones – such as reducing consumption and checking one’s own wants). As the meta-system for driving technological innovation, IP protection promotes an approach that singles out technological solutions as the default solutions on which we rely – while history shows that despite its immense benefits, this is by no means justified without qualification.

So what then is the role for IP in acknowledging and possibly addressing the negative consequences of our use of technology? This editorial does not offer the space for any detailed analysis, but suffice it to say that neither existing tools within the IP system (e.g. not to grant patents to inventions whose exploitation is contrary to public order) nor the idea that IP rights as negative rights allow for restrictions on the use of IP-protected subject matter, have been very effective. Until we are able to address these negative consequences of technology effectively, it may come down to individual producers and users of technology taking up responsibility. That finds support in Art. 7 TRIPS where the objectives for international IP protection refer to both of these groups and call for a ‘balance of rights and obligations’. However, until such responsibilities are legally defined in ways actually addressing the urgency of the current state of our planet, this primarily remains a moral and ethical responsibility for all of us. Ethical or moral codes for developers and users of technology of course already exist, so it seems more a matter of actually adhering to them – or making them relevant. In my view, one thing is clear: there is no reason to settle for an IP system that is unambiguously pro technological innovation without critically reviewing its impact on the continued destruction of our planet.