Organic Technology
The general public widely knows the concept of negative externalities in the broader scope of capitalism; a great example is a factory that sells products but emits black soot into the air, hurting people’s health in their neighborhoods. A negative externality is a cost to a third party from consuming a product. One example is the recent case of PCB, or polychlorinated biphenyl, pollution by Monsanto in Anniston, Alabama, beginning in 1929. Monsanto produced and sold DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) to the Department of Defense; however, the town’s predominantly Black population suffered severe behavioral and intellectual problems owing to their contact exposure to PCB pollution.
Examples like this show why many consumers choose only to buy products from environmentally conscious companies and a great example of a value-driven company in Patagonia. Their core values are:
- “Build the best product.”
- “Cause no unnecessary harm.”
- “Use business to protect nature.”
- “Not bound by convention.”
However, it would be hard-pressed to find technology startups that believe in similar core values. Instead, justifications for income inequality abound in articles such as “Billionaires Build”, which promotes the idea of “fast user growth” above all else. Similarly Sam Harris interviewed Palo Alto VC and Meta Board Member Marc Andreesen in a podcast where the VC created comical strawmen arguments that classified only two options, startups which are the good, or managerial class which are bad. When asked about the concept of negative externalities, he was silent and evaded discussing it. Why? He knows the VC tech industry has dumped many negative externalities onto the public. Examples include scooters in the streets, increased pollution from Uber, the monetization of the family neighborhood from AirBnB to the destruction of democracy by Meta (Facebook).
Looking at products like Bitcoin, which as of late 2021, has the carbon footprint of Kuwait yet has no apparent value, it is evident that “growth” and “billionaires” are the core components of some technology leaders. This idea demonstrates in the most recent case of the audio streaming service Spotify and their ongoing partnership with Joe Rogan and his “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast. In May 2020, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek paid $100 million to podcaster Joe Rogan who created multiple podcast episodes with misinformation about Covid-19. In response to the controversy and public uproar, Ek and his team have stated that their revised aim will be to add warning labels to Rogan’s podcast rather than permanently remove him and his content from the platform. These attempts are futile as his average of 11 million listeners has already heard and processed his misinformation and false content on Covid-19. Ultimately, misinformation is similar to poison because it is challenging to reverse once the harm is out in the wild and in the hands of Joe Rogan’s 11 million Spotify users.
There are other ways companies and consumers can address situations in which their actions are closely related to negative and positive externalities. Companies can co-brand themselves as not engaging in practices that harm consumers, and consumers can choose not to buy brands that engage in harmful practices. When presented with the two choices of organic technology and toxic technology, many people will decide to buy and endorse organic tech. My suggestions for organic technology are of a new framework and encompass the following:
- Build products that help humanity.
- Avoid harming humans or the earth.
- Limit exploitation of technology workers by sharing profits in an equal manner.
- Build slowly and thoughtfully, focusing on value creation instead of user growth.
The exact opposite of organic technology is the example of Theranos. In this private health corporation, the founder committed fraud by overstating the abilities of the blood testing product they produced and incorrectly stating an affiliation with major brands. At Theranos, all four pillars of organic technology don’t comply. The products harmed humans by giving faulty test results, breaking the first two principles, and the founders exploited their workers through widespread income inequality. Finally, the primary focus was on growth instead of value creation, and the manufactured products did not work.
This framework of organic technology can help companies, employees, and consumers choose who to engage with for products to purchase and places to work. There could be three types of organizations that companies can be categorized by: positive, neutral, and hostile. A musician might decide to avoid working with companies with a negative “organic technology” classification because they profit from misinformation that harms humans. Instead, they would move their music to a neutral or a positive technology platform. Likewise, consumers may only purchase subscriptions to neutral or positive “organic tech” services. Ultimately, this framework can succeed if enough people say, “I want a better world and am willing to choose it.” For companies with transparent “organic tech” values, customers may be willing to pay more for their products since they know they aren’t actively harming humans at scale.
One way to improve technology capitalism is to give consumers and employees transparency into how corporations work. Many talented employees and creators will choose to work for either neutral or positive companies since it is likely that the way an organization treats all humans is how they treat employees. Giving consumers a choice to do good through participation in a kinder form of technology capitalism allows the world to become a better place. The world cannot afford the status quo of “anything goes” because the consequences of unconstrained negative externalities are too destructive.