Exploring Digitalization within Limits

Author: Mohammad Fachry
Editor: Hafiz Noer

Today’s Side Effect of Digital Technology

Regardless of the convenience digitalization has brought, discourses surrounding its negative implication rarely enters public debates. Generally, the Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) sector’s contribution to greenhouse gas emission has reached 4%.[1] The figure is expected to rise, following the increased adoption of digital services annually.[2]

For instance, ever since OpenAI let their chatbot product, ChatGPT, hit the market, inducing the entire sector incorporating AI-based services into their business model, power demand has experienced a surge.[3] This occurs due to the expansion of data centers to train a massive amount of data which requires a gargantuan amount of electricity. Despite numerous roadmaps of transitioning to clean energy exist, in practice most of today’s power sources come from carbon-intensive energy like fossil fuels.[4] In other words, current AI applications which mostly rely on large language models[5] only hinders our goal to reach a carbon neutral economy.

Aside from that, electronic components for computer-based products also generate devastating harm. Take for example, the semiconductor industry which has become the essential part of many digital devices. On producing a microchip, mining activities of raw materials such as palladium, copper, or cobalt has grown more frequent, leading to the destruction of the environment.[6] The waste from production has even mounted up in the last 8 years, while chip manufacturers tend to ignore their product’s ecological impact once it is out of the factory[7]. As a result, the damage scale of the chip supply chain may be larger than it seems.

The problem continues on the consumer side. Today’s digital devices are intentionally designed to break easily.[8] This strategy, which is famously known as planned obsolescence, has caused extraction of natural resources of the ICT sector uncontrollable and electronic waste soaring.[9] Proponents of such strategy assert that shortening the lifespan of a product will spur innovation and contribute to economic growth.[10] They do not take into account, however, how to comprehensively recycle the waste as the products’ manufacturing continues.[11] Consequently, these wastes release toxic chemicals into the air and soil, threatening the health of many living beings.[12]

Such cases illustrate only a few of the negative externalities from the digitalization agenda. The undisputed logic which permits environmental damage to continue is rooted in an old assumption that sees technology as the answer that leads to innovation, economic development and eventually prosperity. This logic, however, misses one crucial point: that a system oriented toward endless growth cannot coexist within a planet with limited biocapacity.[13]

Digital Technology’s Paradox within Sustainability Transition Framework

Given the rising environmental concerns in the ICT sectors, many conversations have been lately led towards technology’s role in restraining ecological breakdown. The Twin Transition proposal[14], which aims to achieve decarbonization through technological advancement, attracts various stakeholders globally. It enables digital-led environmental governance through three stages[15]: 1) capturing and turning natural phenomena into quantified data; 2) promoting multi-stakeholder cooperation that benefits privately-held tech corporations; 3) prioritizing automation-based policy.

Nevertheless, this approach faces serious repercussions. A study by Kloppenburg et al explained that representing nature through the datafication process and simplifying decisions with automation depolitize the urgent need to radically detach from the fossil fuels industry. This is obviously a problem as the intricate nature of the earth cannot be treated like objective knowledge, public participation is rarely executed democratically or algorithm recommendations do not always provide the best solutions.[16] To put it simply, the depolitization happens because climate-related problems are seen as something technical (e.g lack of data) rather than political.

Moreover, although many believe that the utilization of digital technology contributes to slowing down climate catastrophe, experts still conclude that its significance is far from ideal. [17] Without prioritising on scaling down energy consumption, such technology-first intervention will only obscure the real systemic change for transitioning towards a sustainable future.[18]

These critiques do not entirely mean that opposing technology is the answer. On the contrary, they also recognize every instruments’ role necessitated towards a sustainable path. However, certain criteria concerning technology ought to be determined first and foremost[19]: is it empirically feasible, socially just and ecologically coherent? Indeed, the current technological system is overly complicated, and hardly satisfies the aforementioned question. Therefore, as long as natural resources are limited, we cannot fully trust on some technological quest to rescue us from many pressing issues. Instead, we have to start shifting the paradigm regarding today’s economic structure.

Mindset Reform in the ICT Sector

Responding to the need of paradigm shift, Computing within Limits or LIMITS[20] have been accommodating researchers, activists and technology practitioners to explore & study social and ecological impacts of the ICT sector. In the third year of their conference, they released a paper which underlines 3 main tenets as the guiding framework for their research, namely challenging growth logic, considering alternative models which stem from scarcity angle, and prioritizing attempts to reduce energy consumption.[21] Following this consensus, a diverse way of looking at technology within limits emerged; it bloomed various small-scale and grassroot technology practices that challenge business-as-usual scenarios while offering non-destructive alternatives.[22]

One of the ideas which gained popularity from this yearly conference is Permacomputing[23], which took inspiration from Permaculture—a sustainable agriculture movement that seeks to co-create with nature for realizing a resilient ecosystem. Just like how Permaculture stemmed from critics of monoculture which destroys soil quality, Permacomputing started off their necessity by questioning the basic assumption of progress, which although brought technological advancement, has exploited natural resources carelessly[24]. The philosophy that first coined by Ville-Matias Heikkilä—programmer-artist who noticed similarity between permaculture and hacking culture in problem solving—has now issued a manifesto[25], highlighting a 10 sustainable digital principles which are influenced by 3 core ideas of permaculture: Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share.

Whether it is a Permacomputing or similar concepts—born out from inside or outside LIMITS conference—such political frameworks need to be enacted before jumping into policy implementation. Otherwise, no matter how progressive a policy is, it still has a potential to be co-opted with opposing narratives. To make this statement clear, let’s take a look at the Right to Repair (R2R) movement.

Towards a More Meaningful Social Relation in the Digital Age (Case Study: Right to Repair)

On paper, R2R has everything it needs to challenge overconsumption and overproduction lifestyle: it demands for a system in which consumers have a better access to repair and modify their possessed product, whether through a form of manual book, spare parts and third party repair services.[26] More specifically, R2R tries to counter planned obsolescence logics which is previously mentioned, by ensuring products have longer lifespan and perform compatibly in any kind of systems.[27] As the R2R movement has started being discussed in the parliament, especially in Europe[28] and USA[29] context, it seems there is also a growing narrative which attempts to situate R2R still within a consumptive mindset. More concrete, the narrative is manifested by the means of introducing products whose parts came out from their own Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).

It is easy to assume that OEMs are campaigning the R2R movement, but as study by Lloveras, J et al has put it that the “right” in this matter is not more than an empty signifier. Rather than emancipating consumers to modify their devices, OEMs gatekeep the repair and maintenance part closed to their ecosystem instead.[30] Moreover, OEMs directly demonize any independently-run R2R practices by controlling protective narration, such as consumer satisfaction (alternative R2R outside their system has a risk) and public interest (preserving intellectual property for innovation).[31] Looking at this dynamic, offering R2R as part of their ecosystem through OEMs is not only a tactic for corporations to find alternative streams of revenue, but also a way to maintain their status quo after planned obsolescence receives harsh criticism.[32]

On a brighter note, if corporations can portray R2R as stated in the previous paragraph, the public can also fight back by contextualizing R2R practices that fit with common values. This is where philosophy such as Permacomputing can play a part, as their wisdom makes room for interpretation. The result could look like what Bradley, K & Persson, O documented in their study, in which it gave a light to local R2R implementations that nurture anticonsumerism culture by highlighting the importance of consumers’ role as owner-caregiver. Such a case is not only a means to promote a low waste economy, but—if executed collectively—can strengthen community solidarity.[33] This activity eventually may be interpreted as a way for a society to reevaluate their social relation, where care works are seen as more important that growth-oriented works that are clearly destructive.[34]

Conclusion

It is regrettable that today’s dependency on technology does not come along with a full understanding of its direct and indirect impact towards living beings and the environment. However abstract the concept of “digital” may seem, it still requires a process of exploiting natural resources which often leaves substantial harms. The public must be well-informed that thinking technology may solve contemporary problems—including those caused by technology itself—is full of inconsistency. This old assumption then has to be challenged, by mainstreaming digital philosophy, such as Permacomputing, that is aware of limitations. By acknowledging and implementing a variety of alternative frameworks in digitalization, we may not only spare time for nature to recover from many harms, but also introduce new and more sustainable social relations.

Reference

[1] Bieser, J.C.T. et al. (2023) ‘A review of assessments of the greenhouse gas footprint and abatement potential of information and Communication Technology’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 99, p. 107033. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107033.

[2] Digital around the world – datareportal – global digital insights (no date) DataReportal. Available at: https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview (Accessed 20 Juni 2025).

[3] Bashir, N. et al. (2024) The climate and Sustainability Implications of generative AI, An MIT Exploration of Generative AI. Available at: https://mit-genai.pubpub.org/pub/8ulgrckc/release/2?readingCollection=9070dfe7 (Accessed 19 Juni 2025).

[4] Electricity production by source (no date) Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=latest (Accessed 20 Juni 2025).

[5] Lee, T.B. and Trott, S. (2023) Large language models, explained with a minimum of math and jargon. Available at: https://www.understandingai.org/p/large-language-models-explained-with (Accessed 20 Juni 2025).

[6] Hess, J.C. (2024) Chip production’s ecological footprint: Mapping Climate and Environmental Impact, Home. Available at: https://www.interface-eu.org/publications/chip-productions-ecological-footprint (Accessed 20 Juni 2025).

[7] ibid

[8] Kumar, V., Mishra, Y. and Meena, M.L. (2022) ‘Planned obsolescence: A Bibliometric analysis’, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 193–203. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4606-6_20.

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] Rivera, J.L. and Lallmahomed, A. (2015) ‘Environmental implications of planned obsolescence and Product lifetime: A literature review’, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 9(2), pp. 119–129. doi:10.1080/19397038.2015.1099757.

[12] Ankit et al. (2021) ‘Electronic waste and their leachates impact on human health and environment: Global ecological threat and management’, Environmental Technology & Innovation, 24, p. 102049. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.102049.

[13] Dennis Meadows, J.R. (2012) The Limits to Growth. Routledge.

[14] Prasastisiwi, A.H. (2025) Twin Transition Framework: Synchronizing Digital Transformation and Sustainability in the Public Sector. Edited by A.M. Purbandadi. rep. Center for Digital Society. Available at: https://digitalsociety.id/2025/04/11/twin-transition-framework-synchronizing-digital-transformation-and-sustainability-in-the-public-sector/19634/ (Accessed 20 Juni 2025).

[15] Kloppenburg, S. et al. (2022) ‘Scrutinizing environmental governance in a Digital age: New ways of seeing, participating, and intervening’, One Earth, 5(3), pp. 232–241. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.004.

[16] ibid

[17] Berner, A. et al. (2022) ‘Do energy efficiency improvements reduce energy use? empirical evidence on the economy-wide rebound effect in Europe and the United States’, Energy Economics, 110, p. 105939. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105939.

[18] Nitschke, J. (2023) Realities of the Twin-Transition: EU Research Funding, Artificial Intelligence, and Techno-Optimism. In Euromemo Workshop. URL: https://euromemo. eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Nitschke_ Realities-of-the-Twin-Transition. pdf, Zugriff (Vol. 3, p. 2024).

[19] Hickel, J. (2023) On technology and degrowth. Monthly Review, 75(3), pp.44-50.

[20] Nardi, B. et al (2018) Computing within limits. Communications of the ACM, 61(10), pp.86-93.

[21] ibid

[22] De Valk, M. (2021) A pluriverse of local worlds: A review of Computing within Limits related terminology and practices. In LIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. PubPub.

[23] Permacomputing (no date) permacomputing. Available at: https://permacomputing.net/ (Accessed 18 Juni 2025).

[24] ibid

[25] ibid

[26] We must secure our right to repair everything we own (no date) iFixit. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair (Accessed 22 Juni 2025).

[27] Ozturkcan, S. (2024) The right-to-repair movement: Sustainability and consumer rights. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 14(2), pp.217-222.

[28] O’neill, S. (2021) European union puts teeth in right to repair.

[29] Mirr, N.A. (2019) Defending the right to repair: An argument for federal legislation guaranteeing the right to repair. IowA L. REv., 105, p.2393.

[30] Lloveras, J. et al. (2025) On ‘the politics of repair beyond repair’: radical democracy and the right to repair movement. Journal of Business Ethics, 196(2), pp.325-344.

[31] ibid

[32] ibid

[33] Bradley, K. and Persson, O. (2022) Community repair in the circular economy–fixing more than stuff. Local Environment, 27(10-11), pp.1321-1337.

[34] ibid