Reducing travel by using technology

mlhynes

Hi, I'm interested in discussing the issues people may have when using technology to reduce physical travel, and thus lessen their carbon footprint. In this instance I’m specifically thinking of internet transactions, i.e. e-commerce, e-Government, etc. Do you think that these help reduce the need for travel or actually add to environmental problems (e.g. shopping for all items in the one place as opposed to getting items from many diverse places delivered to your door)? Do you trust the Internet, and what issues do you have with doing your personal business online? I’m just trying to get a handle on the overall issues and if technology can, indeed, be used in a positive way to eliminate or reduce travel, and lessen our impact on the environment.

Daegerty

I think it makes the whole experience very dull. Sitting down behind your computer just isn't the same as going for an oul taer in the car, meeting a few peoples and what have you.

Macha

Absolutely. It's an old saying now in the energy sector but people don't want electricity, they want cold beer and hot showers. Similarly, people don't necessarily want to drive to a store, they want food in their kitchen.

As Daegerty points out, the end result is not always the same, especially when it comes to meetings. And often, most of the benefit comes in the networking between meetings. But for many services, IT can reduce mobility demand while maintaining access.

This has obvious environmental benefits but we shouldn't forget the social benefits for those of reduced mobility. Many are too young, poor, sick or old to be able to go everywhere physically.

Cookie_Monster

Cycle instead of driving, address both sides of the argument

To look a little wider using TVs andvideo conferencing instead of flying around the place for meetings is an easy, effective was to cut down on travel for big companies.

edwinkane

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Cycle instead of driving, address both sides of the argument

To look a little wider using TVs andvideo conferencing instead of flying around the place for meetings is an easy, effective was to cut down on travel for big companies.

As someone who has used both video conferencing and face to face meetings, I conclude video conferencing is a pretty poor substitute for the real thing. Video conferencing has a place, but not as a substitute for face to face meetings.

silverharp

we use "go to meeting" from time to time, it has a role for sure, it tends to work best for project type work where it can substitute for the odd face to face.
The main focus should be trying to get people to work from home even if its only one day a week, most office based staff could organise their work in such a way that one days solid work could be done at home where supervisors wouldnt have to second guess if the staff were "dossing" or not.
My own wife works in IT and hasnt set foot in an office in 10 years, is a real life enhancer

mikep

Hi take a look at this...http://www.beaming-eu.org/the_project

A friend of mine is involved.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

As someone who has used both video conferencing and face to face meetings...

I think it’s reasonable to assume that most people have partaken in some sort of tele/video conference.

edwinkane wrote: »

...I conclude video conferencing is a pretty poor substitute for the real thing. Video conferencing has a place, but not as a substitute for face to face meetings.

Given the choice of having a quick video/tele conference or embarking on a time-consuming trip to a remote location, I'll choose video conference almost every time. I would always suggest it as a preliminary at the very least.

edwinkane

mikep wrote: »

Hi take a look at this...http://www.beaming-eu.org/the_project

A friend of mine is involved.

I must say it all sounds very Star Trek!

mlhynes

mikep wrote: »

Hi take a look at this...http://www.beaming-eu.org/the_project

A friend of mine is involved.

Gezz it is a bit Star Trek alright and amazing the work that’s going on with the use of new technologies. But are people comfortable with these advances (and indeed the pace of) technology development? Have we any control over its development, or should we even try control/tame it? I’m thinking of some of the ethical issues involved in mikep’s friend’s project and the safety and security issues of doing business over the Internet... or am I being too picky and is it all positive for new technology, even with regards to the environment?

djpbarry

mlhynes wrote: »

But are people comfortable with these advances (and indeed the pace of) technology development? Have we any control over its development, or should we even try control/tame it? I’m thinking of some of the ethical issues involved in mikep’s friend’s project and the safety and security issues of doing business over the Internet... or am I being too picky and is it all positive for new technology, even with regards to the environment?

What's your own opinion?

mlhynes

djpbarry wrote: »

What's your own opinion?

My own 'gut' opinion is that we may give too much reverence to technology, and technology development, largely because most laypeople (and include myself here) don't really understand the processes/terminology/etc involved. We leave the decisions on what we want technology to do, or the direction technology takes, in the hands of a very few individuals. I know some people will say ‘but we all wanted an iphone or ipad’, but that was a marketing/advertising driven phenomena (brilliant though it was) we could still live very comfortable without these items.


We created technology to go to the moon at enormous cost, why? well largely because we could and no other reason (we knew that there was nothing there and it couldn’t support life). Yet we live in a world where millions are hungry and socially excluded from our ‘developed’ lifestyles and no one every says ‘let’s focus on solving these problems and push technology development and direction to build a fairer world’. I hear people say ‘but these problems can’t be solved by technology’ to which I reply ‘they probably said that about flying at one stage, and mobile communications’. So… my ‘gut’ opinion would be that we all need to get involved/concerned about what we want technology to achieve and not leave it to just a hand full of powerful individuals.

"And they say I'm a dreamer... :cool: "

Daegerty

mlhynes wrote: »

I know some people will say ‘but we all wanted an iphone or ipad’, but that was a marketing/advertising driven phenomena (brilliant though it was) we could still live very comfortable without these items.

I don't want a bloody iphone or ipad anyway. I find a lot of stuff coming out these days is very much concerned with collecting information on people, centralisation and keeping everyone 'on the grid' and dependant. but not really technology's fault, thats just how the mainstream part of it is

djpbarry

mlhynes wrote: »

We created technology to go to the moon at enormous cost, why? well largely because we could and no other reason (we knew that there was nothing there and it couldn’t support life).

There’s no doubt that the Apollo missions were born out of the space race and a need to beat the Soviets, but that doesn’t make them any less of an incredible achievement (in my view). I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “we knew there was nothing there” – we’re almost 100% certain that there’s no life on Mars, but that doesn’t mean that exploration of the planet would be a waste of time.

It’s also worth pointing out that although NASA’s budget was pretty large during the space race in the 60’s, it has been scaled back considerably since then – the proverbial drop in the ocean compared to the US defence budget. Ireland’s bailout package could keep NASA going for about six years.

mlhynes wrote: »

Yet we live in a world where millions are hungry and socially excluded from our ‘developed’ lifestyles and no one every says ‘let’s focus on solving these problems and push technology development and direction to build a fairer world’.

Inequality is largely a result of politics. For example, removing trade barriers would do much to alleviate global poverty - no technological advances are necessary.

mlhynes wrote: »

So… my ‘gut’ opinion would be that we all need to get involved/concerned about what we want technology to achieve and not leave it to just a hand full of powerful individuals.

Who are these powerful individuals you are referring to? I contribute to technological advancement during the course of my working day (as do a very large number of other people in the world), but I don’t ever recall being directed by this small group of individuals you’re referring to.