- 12/09/2025
- Category: Commentaries
Author: Artha Debora Silalahi dan Suandi Silalahi
Editor: Bangkit Adhi Wiguna
Introduction
In an age of accelerating technological advancement, our dependence on digital systems has grown rapidly. From communication and employment to leisure, every aspect of life is increasingly embedded in the global digital network. Yet beneath the convenience and innovation lies a critical but often overlooked issue: the ecological footprint of digital infrastructure. Everyday activities such as video streaming, cloud storage, and content sharing consume vast amounts of energy. Contrary to popular belief, digital infrastructure is not carbon-neutral, it is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis (Murtiningsih, 2024). The term cyberspace, commonly used to describe the digital realm, has faced increasing criticism, particularly from digital ethnographers (Pink et al., 2015). Digital life is no longer a separate or artificial domain but an extension of human social, cultural, and material experience. Rather than creating a binary between “virtual” and “real,” contemporary approaches highlight the continuity between online and offline spaces as one integrated social reality, a notion captured in the phrase “I click, therefore I am” (Hardiman, 2021).
According to Greenpeace’s Clicking Clean report (2017), a single large-scale data center can use up to 100 megawatts of electricity enough to power more than 80,000 homes in developed countries annually. This figure does not account for the environmental toll of manufacturing digital devices and the exponential growth of non-degradable electronic waste. Global E-Waste reached 53.6 million metric tons in 2020, largely driven by consumer digital technology (UNITAR, 2020). Given this scale of environmental impact, digital policy should be treated as environmental policy. Hence, the discourse around digitalization must move beyond technical efficiency and economic growth. It must incorporate ethical and ecological considerations. Digital sustainability is not only about adopting green technology, but about establishing a digital ecosystem that is socially equitable, morally grounded, and environmentally sustainable. This transformation demands active collaboration between governments, industries, and civil society to create policy frameworks that steer digital governance toward long-term planetary and human well-being.
Digitalization and the Ecological Crisis: The Need for Reflective and Just Regulation
Current digital policy frameworks have yet to meaningfully address ethical and ecological dimensions. Many remain rooted in formalistic and technocratic paradigms, lacking a normative foundation (Ruddin, 2023). Digital reality is no longer peripheral, it has become integral to human life, shaping and being shaped by our social, cultural, and ecological systems. The logic of digital design, production, and representation directly influences how individuals relate to their existence and environment (Piliang, 2008). When driven solely by market demands for speed and consumption, technology risks erasing human values and severing ethical ties between people, technology, and nature. In contemporary society, physical connection to the body, to nature, and to community is increasingly mediated through screens. This shift profoundly alters not only our lifestyles but also the ecological balance (Silalahi, 2024). Evaluating digital transformation should therefore include its capacity to maintain sustainable ecological and social relations (Val, 2024). As James Moor (1985) argues, technological progress demands more than legal adjustments; it requires the formulation of new ethical concepts capable of addressing complex modern challenges.
Digital governance must move beyond concerns of data security and privacy to embrace reflective, justice-oriented paradigms. These paradigms must focus social equity, environmental responsibility, and collective moral accountability. It is not enough to passively adapt to technological change society must actively shape it through a clear ethical vision (Silalahi, 2024). Indonesia’s Digital Vision 2045 outlines strategic goals such as digital inclusion, data sovereignty, and economic empowerment. Notably, it recognizes the environmental consequences of digitalization, proposing long-term strategies such as data centre decarbonization, incentives for low-emission technology, and environmental auditing of ICT infrastructure. However, regulatory efforts remain limited in addressing normative ecological concerns. Without critical intervention, the nation risks reinforcing an extractive and unsustainable digital development model. A forward-looking, value-based framework is needed one that integrates green digital economics, strengthens environmental indicators in digital assessments, and embeds ecological rights into public ethics and data use policy.
Towards Ethical, Reflective, and Equitable Digital Regulation
Digital governance in the 21st century must go beyond efficiency and innovation. It must respond to the ethical, ecological, and social challenges of our time. Ideally, digital regulation should not function solely as an administrative mechanism but as a moral compass that reflects collective societal values in technological practice. At present, digital governance is heavily shaped by industrial logic and market incentives, often at the expense of ethical and ecological considerations. All digital activities from data storage and online content consumption to social media interactions leave a tangible ecological footprint through energy usage and e-waste generation. If this governance continues to follow a technocratic path without ethical oversight, it risks exacerbating environmental destruction and social inequality.
The outdated notion of technology as a neutral tool must be replaced by critical frameworks that address the human, ethical, and ecological stakes of digitalization (Winanti & Mas’udi, 2023). A responsible digital future must be rooted in historical consciousness and intergenerational accountability: honouring the Earth’s legacy, addressing present human needs, and safeguarding the planet for future generations. Digital governance must blend technological effectiveness with moral foresight. It should guide not merely follow technological change. Regulation should evolve into a normative force that promotes inclusive innovation while protecting ecological and social integrity. Equitable digital governance should no longer be treated as a narrow technocratic agenda but as a foundational pillar for reimagining human life where technology nurtures diversity, reinforces solidarity, and safeguards the biosphere. The role of digital regulation, therefore, must not be reactive but proactive and capable of directing the evolution of digital civilization toward sustainability, inclusion, and ecological humanism.
Bibliography
Greenpeace. (2017). “Clicking Clean: Who’s Winning The Race to Build a Green Internet?”.
Hardiman, F. Budi. (2021). I Click Then I Have a Human in the Digital Revolution. Yogyakarta: PT Kanisius.
Murtiningsih, Siti, et.al. (2024). “Challenges of using ChatGPT in Education: A Digital Pedagogy Analysis.” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) Vol. 13, No. 5, October 2024, pp. 3466~3473. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i5.29467.
Chosen by Yasraf Amir. (2008). Multiplicity and Differentiation: Redefining Design, Technology, and Humanity. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Pink, S., Horst., H. Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T and Tacchi J. (2015). Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. Sage Publications.
Ruddin, Israel. (2023). “The Evolution of Cybercrime Law in Legal Development in the Digital World.” Journal of Law and Development Vol.53 No.1 (2023): 143-150. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol53.no1.1522.
Silalahi, Artha Deborah, et.al. (2024). “Navigating the Democratic Crisis: Indonesia’s Journey Through Political Ethics, Law, and Social Change.” Sapientia Humana Journal of Social Humanities Vol.4 No.2 (2024): 221-232. https://doi.org/10.26593/jsh.v4i02.8547.
Please, Artha Deborah. (2024). “Digital Human in Law Symbollicum: Understanding Law and Symbols in the Digital Age.” Brief Article Megashift Fisipol UGM.
Please, Artha Deborah. (2024). “Transparency of Access to Justice Policy: Reviewing the Goals and Challenges of Implementing the E-Court System.” Brief Article Megashift Fisipol UGM.
Please, Artha Deborah. (2025). “Language, Power, and Norms: Between Triple Disruption and the Struggle for Meaning.” Brief Article Megashift Fisipol UGM.
United Nations Institute for Training and Research. (2020). The Global E-Waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, Flows, and The Circular Economy Potential. .
Val, Jaym/Jaime del. (2024). “Ontohackers: Radical Movement Philosophy in the Age of Extinctions and Algorithms, Part I.” Radical Movement Philosophy and the Body Intelligence Revolution, Punctum, Books. Can be accessed through https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.20626771.8.
Winanti, Poppy. S., and Mas’udi, Wawan. (Eds.). (2023). Future Socio-Political Science:
Answering Megashift? Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
