What technological choices are needed for a sustainable societal model?

The Enduring Promises of Technology

Contemporary discourse on innovation is grounded in a set of promises that have remained remarkably consistent over time. Philippe Bihouix identifies three main ones: a promise of abundance, a promise of liberation from labor, and a promise of enhanced human capabilities.

These promises are not new. Traces of them can already be found in the 16th century in the writings of Francis Bacon, for whom technology was meant to correct the world’s flaws and restore control over it. The idea that innovation can solve the problems it encounters did not originate in the digital age.

What has changed, however, are the technical systems within which these promises are embedded. Far from being disruptive, new technologies are added to existing infrastructures, which they complicate and on which they depend. Energy networks, supply chains, transportation systems: every innovation builds upon pre-existing layers and contributes to reinforcing dependence on them.

In this context, technological “solutions” often appear less as transformative changes that will provide answers and more as extensions of the status quo. They allow us to maintain a certain way of life by shifting constraints rather than resolving them.

Innovating So That Nothing Changes

Another shift has taken place over the past few decades: Etienne Klein points out that the word “progress” has gradually disappeared from political discourse, replaced by “innovation.” This shift is not insignificant.

Progress implies a direction, a desirable transformation of the world. Innovation, on the other hand, has become an end in itself. It is supposed to generate growth, jobs, and competitiveness. Within this logic, the question of the values that innovation embodies is never raised.

There is no questioning of society through innovation. Innovation consists of doing things differently so that we can continue doing the same thing. Producing, consuming, and trading as before, without questioning the purposes of these activities.

From this perspective, innovation does not serve to transform the model, but to stabilize it. It allows us to absorb tensions, circumvent limitations, and delay any questioning of the status quo.

In other words: we innovate so that nothing changes.

Material Limits That Are Hard to Overcome

This gap between promises and reality comes up against a constraint that discussions of innovation tend to downplay: the finite nature of resources.

Contemporary technologies rely on materials whose extraction is costly, energy-intensive, and often destructive. Recycling processes, frequently presented as a solution, face well-documented physical limits. Material losses are inevitable; certain uses irreversibly disperse resources; complex alloys make recovery extremely difficult.

In this context, the notion of “green growth” appears as an attempt to reconcile objectives that are difficult to reconcile. Producing more while reducing environmental impact requires efficiency gains that, in practice, are often offset by increased volumes.

Examples abound. Technologies presented as sustainable (wind power, for example) rely on supply chains that are intensive in rare resources. Objects designed to optimize comfort or performance introduce a complexity that makes them more fragile, harder to repair, and more dependent on extensive technical systems.

How, for example, can we talk about “clean cars” when we’re focusing entirely on the power and size of vehicles, and when the paints, electronics, and interior materials used rely on metals and plastics that will never be reused? This paradox can be explained by the fact that green growth today is based solely on climate criteria, overlooking the finite nature of resources, the preservation of biodiversity, and the quality of soil and water...

What Our Technological Choices Reveal

In light of these observations, one question takes center stage: what criteria guide our innovation?

Today, the answer is relatively clear. Technological choices are largely shaped by goals of productivity, competitiveness, and growth. It is these criteria that determine what is developed, funded, and disseminated. Other dimensions—social, environmental, and political—do exist, but they often play a marginal role, functioning as adjustments or constraints rather than as guiding principles.

This imbalance has direct consequences. It leads to a preference for technologies that reinforce certain dynamics (acceleration, increasing complexity, dependence) at the expense of other possible forms of organization (simplicity, resilience, local autonomy).

The so-called “low-tech” proposals, championed notably by Philippe Bihouix, are part of this tension. They do not consist of rejecting technology, but of redefining its uses and priorities: favoring solutions that are simpler, more robust, more repairable, and less dependent on scarce resources.

But this approach immediately raises another question.

Political Tensions That Are Hard to Avoid

As Olivier Rey points out, technological choices are not merely technical or economic decisions. They are also tied to issues of power.

Major technological advances have historically been closely linked to the military, industrial, and political capabilities of states. In a globalized world, where power dynamics remain a defining factor, deviating from dominant trajectories is not without risk.

Can a country or society choose to prioritize technologies that are less resource-intensive, less focused on productivity, and more oriented toward well-being, without putting itself in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis other actors? Can we slow down, simplify, and relocate without losing our capacity for action or influence?

There are no simple answers to these questions, but they shift the debate. The initial question—what technological choices for a sustainable society—cannot be addressed solely in technical terms. It requires examining the ends these choices serve, the criteria that guide them, and the power dynamics within which they operate.

What today’s debates and deadlocks reveal is that technologies are not chosen in the abstract. They are extensions of models, priorities, and worldviews. Under these circumstances, the question is not merely which technologies to adopt, but what we are truly seeking to preserve or transform through them.

The ideas in this essay are drawn from presentations at the conference organized by the Association des Centraliens, “What Technological Choices for a Sustainable Society,” held on April 13, 2016.