This is not a post about Radiohead, but they did have the right idea

If there’s one word I’ve had to use over the past year more than I ever wanted to, it’s “efficient.”

Actually, “creative” or “effective” could fit in that line, but “efficient” does arise a lot, to a rather cringeworthy degree. I ought not be so surprised: it’s mostly been for work-related writing, but for a snippet of that time, it’s been to describe myself. And on a personal level, it’s not inaccurate: I am set to a pretty fast base speed. Which of course is most likely a combination of nature, nurture, and Being a Westerner.

But it’s that last part that’s caught my interest. Recent events have made it extra noticeable. Because it’s all but glaring lately that “efficiency” is something of an unofficial American value.

I’m not saying it isn’t official, either. But American values aren’t exactly scrawled somewhere on the National Mall, so it’s all assumptions and context clues here, plus or minus interesting academic observations. Regardless of how the value of efficiency came to be so central, I am curious about why it continues to be so. In the wake of climate change, in the wake of long COVID, in the wake of so much else that continues to slow down people’s pace (or at least attempt to).

In an attempt to casually weave in more current events, since this post has been in the works for a BIT longer than I’d like to admit, it’s become even more apparent that the drive for something to work, and fast, and now to be quite dominant. Overpowering, perhaps. Even if it means other, more helpful traits get squashed in favor of efficiency.

To this trend I say: Effectiveness definitely matters. Efficiency does too. But at what cost?

All of this is just the icing on the Pisa-style-leaning cake of so many layers: the emergence and popularity of generative AI, stress-related illnesses, shoddy scheduling habits (due to using tech as a crutch?! who knows), and the crowded proliferation of data centers. Plus the results that come with all of the above: slow reactions at traffic lights, crowded doctor schedules and slow waiting rooms, packaged food’s relentless popularity, and, I guess, the intolerance for normal WiFi speeds that comes with the existence of unlimited data plans.

Being from an extra productivity-driven area makes one keenly aware of both efficiency’s light and shadow sides in this way. Northern Virginia (as much as its parent, DC) is where I’m from, and it’s certainly not known for a slow and simple lifestyle. And while I would never call myself Northern Virginia’s biggest fan, I do not necessarily lump this quality into a category of No-Good Very-Bad Things. Knowing how to Get Shit Done, I’ve found, is generally a helpful skill.

Of course, I’ve experienced plenty of its diminishing returns. Some on a personal level; others as wider-world patterns. Many wider-world groups sound the alarm about these effects regularly. I am not sure if listening to those voices is usually considered a cost-effective investment, though, so at times I do fear for the future.

I have been stewing on this topic for a little too long, as previously noted, but perhaps now is a more timely moment to elaborate on and post it, especially as a rapid-fire news cycle and its almost-immediate reactions continue to pick up their pace. When everything happens in something so close to real time, is there ever any space to really understand it? To reflect about the real implications? Or is there only ever room for suffocating reactivity?

Maybe that’s easy for me to say, as someone not employed to write thinkpieces on a 15-minute news cycle. But maybe because I’m not in that position, that makes me a more objective candidate for asking such a question.

Actually, it’s interesting: being in a phase of life that’s more transitional (as has been the case for a while now) has made it incredibly clear how many messages out there say as much. That it’s not okay to take your time, figure out your own process, slow down and listen rather than react. That the products and output of your life matter far more than the way that you get there.

Perhaps this is helpful for…well, producing. But what about beyond that? What about when it comes to other aspects of life? Is this a philosophy that truly carries over? Does it create progress, and achieve helpful change? Or does it only bring about a few benefits and a whole lot of diminishing returns?

*

Surprisingly enough, none other than Carl Jung had a lot to say about this phenomenon. Most notably, there was this observation:

“The motto ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way,’ is the superstition of modern man. Yet in order to sustain his creed, contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by ‘powers’ that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names. They keep him on the run with restlessness, vague apprehensions, psychological complications…and, above all, a large array of neuroses.”

That’s from Man and His Symbols, published in 1964 and written even earlier. Clearly, not much has changed.

This piece from Foreign Affairs Review has a few more gems from Jung’s perspective, and goes on to tie in a few other thinkers’ similar takes, in a way that interestingly brings to mind the productivity paradox.

But what, you might be wondering, is the productivity paradox? Well, I am so glad you asked!

It’s this phenomenon in business process analysis wherein, the more is poured into the pursuit of efficiency, the less efficiency is actually achieved. This has been observed in manufacturing, and notably in information technology: “As more investment is made in information technology, worker productivity may go down instead of up. This observation has been firmly supported with empirical evidence from the 1970s to the early 1990s. This is highly counter intuitive.” No kidding!

Obviously this didn’t come about because people who want progress are mustache-twirling meanies out to destroy others’ souls. It’s more so a result of the fact that, even if advancement is not bad, the pursuit of advancement has, like everything else, its own trade-offs and unintended consequences.

*

So let’s jog back to the whole AI song-and-dance. I waxed confused about it already, but did not intend to go full Luddite there. If it works for and even helps some people get through their day — especially those who are disabled, neurodivergent, or otherwise struggling — it’s not accurate to call it entirely problematic.

That said, if we’re already having health alarms sounded over smartphones and social media, why wouldn’t guardrails and guidelines be put in place for something whose potential is even more powerful? History really does rhyme, because the Industrial Revolution definitely prompted similar lines of thinking. Meaning, there was the idea that progress for its own sake is sufficient, and there was the pushback from those who worried about it being unhealthy or unhelpful. (Fun fact: that is actually how the original Luddites cropped up! For various reasons, so I won’t misrepresent them as all being For the Good of the People, but it’s still interesting to read about now.)

Anyway: the point, in the end, is that those two things can and usually are true at once. Advancement is not all bad, and advancement often has harmful unintended consequences.

I’ve been revisiting a favorite anime of mine (and/or favorite show, admittedly), Fullmetal Alchemist (Brotherhood devotee here), and it is a fantastic medium for this idea. It’s incredibly well-written, explores several brilliant ideas, and has a slew of excellent storylines and characters, but the heart of the story is the best part. And that is this idea that humanity should never be sacrificed to progress, and if it is, then it is not progress at all.

It remains to be seen whether an idea like that could ever emerge as a full-bodied truth or brand-new, widely embraced American value. But I’m not hopeless when it comes to the idea of it becoming a guiding light, making itself known in cultural corners and providing powerful little sanctuaries for anyone who needs them. Because, make no mistake, this is an idea that is deeply needed. I believe in this probably more than I do anything else.

One such response, which is mostly visible via artistic media, is solarpunk. It’s about coupling technological advancement with nature in a way that prioritizes people and the environment—and illustrates in color and detail how we are not separate from our environment. It encourages people to have hope, and more than that, to act upon it.

A seeming offshoot of that movement is “Possitopia,” which asks people to be radically imaginative in considering (mostly in a climate change context) what is Probable and what is Possible in the future. This approach tries “to braid the two, to close the gap, to create a viable path for humanity (or for communities) amidst the shifting and uncertain realm of the Possible.” It requires “bringing together people with different views, combining the imagination with hard evidence or existing solutions, and more design of safe and creative ways to lay down the stepping stones to forge the viable path.”

What do these offer that an insatiable craving for progress could never? It’s a sense of being grounded in what is, and using that reality as a foundation for honest growth. There is something incredibly powerful about that, in a way that surpasses what sheer grit and tenacity or blind optimism can offer. It’s about neither efficiency nor simplicity alone. It’s a marriage of the two—ambitious aspiration plus honest recognition of human needs.

Maybe it’s possible for something even better to occur when those two combine. In a land of big dreamers that began with a literal rebellion, grounding that spirit in a more humane kind of practicality could lead to the kind of change that helps people live, and live well. I had hopes this kind of thing would happen post-pandemic, and it certainly did not en masse, but there are new trends in mental health, work culture, and society as a whole that point to its potential.

That alone is a glimmer. Because of course there is no single right way to live that works for everybody. But shouldn’t everybody have a sense that they can truly live?

*

photo credits: @martinirc, @ericbarbeau